RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] FW: If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence

To: Ron Kolarik <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>,rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] FW: If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence
From: Matthew Pitts via RTTY <rtty@contesting.com>
Reply-to: Matthew Pitts <n8ohu@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:45:16 -0400
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Ron,

Ted has mentioned wide bandwidth voice modes, and so did you in a message to 
another list, which is why I asked the question I did. The point I am trying to 
to make is that these things would already be happening if folks wanted to do 
them in the RTTY/data bands. The same is true if people wanted to "fill up the 
RTTY/Data bands with wideband digital", as I believe he said; we wouldn't be 
able to use any of the digital modes we like if there really were that many 
people that could afford to build a station that they could not use for 
anything else. And, for what it's worth, where else are hams using peer to peer 
digital (Pactor 3 and Winmor 1600) supposed to operate? 

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU 

On August 16, 2016 12:28:28 PM EDT, Ron Kolarik <rkolarik@neb.rr.com> wrote:
>Matthew, try to stick to the subject. Stations operating under
>97.221(c) 
>regularly blast anything in their way
>and if the P3 stations would stay where they belong it would help. No 
>one said anything about current
>stations running 6kHz wide modes.....where the hell did that come
>from??
>
>Ron K0IDT
>
>
>On 8/16/2016 5:49 AM, Matthew Pitts via RTTY wrote:
>> Ron,
>>
>> How often are hams in the RTTY/data segment interfered with by 6 kHz
>bandwidth signals that originate from hams now? If the answer is they
>haven't been, you have your answer about the question.
>>
>> Matthew Pitts
>> N8OHU
>>
>> On August 14, 2016 3:59:23 PM EDT, Ron Kolarik <rkolarik@neb.rr.com>
>wrote:
>>> Matthew, it's happening now with the 97.221(c) stations. What makes
>you
>>>
>>> think the wide band stuff
>>> will behave any better? The big problem is no one, not the FCC or
>the
>>> ARRL, is watching or responding
>>> to complaints.
>>>
>>> Ron K0IDT
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/14/2016 9:34 AM, Matthew Pitts via RTTY wrote:
>>>> Some major flaws that I see in his argument are:
>>>>
>>>> 4: As I said before, claims of a massive increase in the number of
>>> automatic stations or wide bandwidth digital voice stations swamping
>>> the RTTY/Data bands are nothing more than FUD.
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>