[CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future

[Michael Adams]

I am leery of trying to argue against RM-11708 or for bandwidth limits using the statements like "Pactor ops step on RTTY ops".

Subject to the CW/Data vs Phone/Image divide, I'm sure that for any two given modes examples can be found where someone can say "X op stepped on Y QSO".  That kind of headache is already addressed in Part 97, under the "good amateur practice" provisions and the limits on harmful interference.

To have a chance at success, someone arguing for imposing some kind of bandwidth limit on US ops on part of the band needs to focus on the technical issues that make it desirable to segregate narrow from wide modes....and even then, such arguments are exposed to a rebuttal of "...but other countries seem to get by without such hard restrictions."

Arguments against the use of Pactor haven't gone anywhere with the FCC.  Considering the focus of the NPRM, perhaps contesters considering responding ought to think about that day in the future when a group of hams start building amateur OTH radar systems for the challenge of chasing DXCC with such a mode.  Does Part 97 (as proposed to be amended) allow for a "fair" sandbox in that future...and if not, what changes should be made and why?

(I'm only using OTH Radar as an example.  I'm sure there are other potential ultra-wide modes that would serve as good alternative examples.)

-- 
Michael Adams | mda at n1en.org

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jeff AC0C
Sent: Tuesday, 23 August, 2016 23:08
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future

If you have not had a QSO ruined by Pactor automatic data station or a caller, then you have not spent much time running RTTY.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie