[RTTY] BoD votes LoTW initiatives

[WW3S]

whats any of this got to do with LOTW, as mentioned in the Subject ?!?!?!

On 7/26/2013 4:15:56 PM, Kok Chen (chen at mac.com) wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Peter Laws wrote:
>
> > We
> shouldn't get sidetracked, though.  The issue at hand is excessive
> > bandwidth in the narrow-band portions of the FCC allocations.  We need
> > to fix the automatic station stuff and we need to fix the proprietary
> > encoding problem (D-STAR, PACTOR, etc), but this isn't
> the time.
>
> Let me pose a question for the community.
>
> Lets say the automatic stations are bound by enforceable rules that they
> cannot transmit over an on-going QSO, and will also not respond to other
> modes (even my puny RTTY signal) with their idiotic bzzzzt when my signal
> is not meant for them.
>
> Is there still an objection over having wideband modes among narrow band
> modes?
>
> Each item (wideband, ALE, etc) when taken alone are not objectionable to
> me (but that's just me).  But together, it just doesn't work for me.
>
> If no rules are enforceable, then I cannot but object to wide band signals
> among narrow band signals.  It is good for neither of the users of narrow
> band modes nor the wideband modes (as Henning Harmuth pointed out eons
> ago).
>
> A human cannot copy Morse over 2.8 kHz of wideband garbage, and you
> won't be abl