[RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives

[W4GKM]

I emailed my director but I doubt that we will get any support from him as 
well.  This is very upsetting to me and many of my friends.

Nick
w4gkm

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ron Kolarik
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:37 PM
To: rtty-contesting.com ; Ben Antanaitis - WB2RHM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives

Well that's about what I expected. The ARRL failed with the band allocations
by bandwidth (Winlink wars) and now it looks like they are trying an end run
to get the wideband junk everywhere. Did anyone on the Ad Hoc Symbol Rate 
Rule
Modernization Committee ask for input from the ham community? This smells
bad.....again, it got very ugly last time. Write to your director and try to 
stop it
before it gets to the FCC.

The questions I asked during the last dust up that got me booted and banned
from a certain digital reflector were
1. Who monitors the messages for content?
2. Does Part 97.101(b) not apply to Winlink?
3.Part 97.113(4), are emails moving through the Winlink system encrypted
    within the message body? See point 1.
4. Part 97.113(5)  SailMail is available.
This got started when a sysop told users to turn off busy channel detection 
and
the open admission of users that they never had the volume up on their rigs
to listen for other signals.

I need to cool down some before I write my director or need bp meds.

Ron
K0IDT


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ben Antanaitis - WB2RHM" <wb2rhm at wb2rhm.com>
To: "rtty-contesting.com" <rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives


> All,
>
> FYI----  Here is the response I received today, 7/24/2013 from K1ZZ, the 
> CEO of the ARRL Re my strong objection to the ARRL 2.8KHz bandwidth 
> proposal for digital modes in all the HF bands.........
>
> Here is the ARRL (but, we are working for your best interests) 
> position...........
>
> 73,
> Ben - WB2RHM, WB2RHM/4, WB2RHM/2
> ARRL Life Member
> ARRL 50 yr Member
> Active RTTY Contester
>
> **************************************************************************************
> Ben, I will forward your comments to your Director, Dennis Bodson, W4PWF.
>
> However, you should welcome a limit being placed on the bandwidth of HF 
> digital data signals. At the present time there is no bandwidth limit 
> whatsoever on digital data signals as long as the 300 baud limit is 
> observed. It is legal today for a signal with multiple carriers, each with 
> multiple-bit-per-symbol modulation, to be considerably wider than 2.8 kHz. 
> The 2.8 kHz value accommodates digital emissions now in common use while 
> putting a cap on the bandwidth that a station could occupy in the future.
>
> 73,
> David Sumner, K1ZZ
> Chief Executive Officer, ARRL
> **************************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

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