[RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Germany has fewer than on tenth the number of licensees as the US.  The
number using such bandwidth wasting and QRM generating modes in not 
significantly large to create a problem although there is a small and
*growing issue with wideband PACTOR III signals from European based
stations.  Allowing the unfettered use of such modes by US licensees
will compound the problem as it will provide a vastly increased number
of opportunities for all stations to use such garbage generators.

The sad part is that there is no need for wideband, high speed data
- in the traditionally narrowband band segments as the data rates are
many times the keyboard speed of even the best typists.  Digital voice
belongs in the "phone" segments of the bands and long file/message
transfers belong on the various commercial services.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 7/25/2013 12:31 AM, Andreas Rehberg wrote:
> Maybe I missed the point - but we've this kind of regulation since many years
> hr in DL and I'm not aware that any of the dramatically described things occured.
> Andy, DF4WC
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 25. Juli 2013 um 05:41 Uhr
> *Von:* "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
> *An:* rtty at contesting.com
> *Cc:* "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner at arrl.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives
>
>   > 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.
>
> Dave is full of it ... such a modulation would constitute a narrow band
> spread spectrum signal (e.g. ROS) which would be illegal under the
> rules. This is nothing more than an another attempt to (1) find a way
> to make PACTOR III legal in the US and (2) find a place for digital
> voice operation where it does not face competition from analog voice.
>
> If ARRL succeeds in ramming this garbage past the FCC, it will spell
> the end for CW and most traditional person to person digital modes.
> It will be a bigger fiasco than *Incentive Licensing* and will likely
> result in losses to amateur allocations similar to those in response
> to the UPS "grab" for spectrum at 200 MHz for their ill-fated "narrow
> band voice modulation" boondoggle. Note UPS never built their system
> but amateur radio in the US permanently lost access to 2 MHz between
> 220 and 222 MHz.
>
> Allow 2.8 KHz digital data and commercial interests will be all over
> wanting the suddenly valuable lower 100 KHz of EVERY amateur HF band.
>
> The ARRL Board of Directors can't seem to learn from history ... and
> as they say, those who refuse to learn from history and condemned to
> repeat it.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 7/24/2013 3:58 PM, Ben Antanaitis - WB2RHM wrote:
>   > 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
>