Yea, SSB ops are out of the woods. No risk there. This is the big change
in the 2005-2007 filing vs. now. And they are right, it's not a LARGE scale
plan - rather, it's incremental and small steps toward a bandwidth plan.
Bet the ARRL's estimate was that by dropping the change down to the
non-phone bands, all of the phone only users would not bother to comment.
The net effect of this one is to crank up the number of Pactor P4 signals
camped out in the CW/digital/RTTY space. Just look at the number of eager
responses mentioning specifically P4. The only guys itching to rock and
roll with the P4 are the email-by-HF camp.
To me, it looks like the league really wants to get to a point where there
are no FCC regulations governing the ham band allocations; that the use
would be up to the ham community. And do you want to bet on who would say
they are best positioned to be the representative of the "ham community?"
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Osborne
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:04 PM
To: RTTY
Subject: [RTTY] Symbol Rate
I saw this in the ARRL letter tonight:
" The League took steps to clarify just what it is -- and is not -- asking
the FCC to do. ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, said that while a
significant majority of commenters support the petition, some appear not to
understand the petition's intent. The League reiterated that its filing
would not "initiate any large scale plan to convert to regulation of
emissions by bandwidth," and would not affect any emissions other than
data."
Is this to say that it is not gonna affect CW and SSB operators, just RTTY,
PSK, and JT-65. Kinda like you phone op's won't even notice it and too hell
with you digital ops. 73
Tom W7WHY
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|