[RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital BW

[iw1ayd - Salvatore Irato]

No Paul.
Let me strongly disagree with you, even if what you wrote is something 
that could be written under "good common sense".
Unfortunately not common nor good are under metrics shared, so widely, 
in the same way by anyone of us.
Let the wide open signals get into and you will see anything, whatever, 
in any place of those. It's just a question of time. Some rules are 
needed well in place to prevent spreading of common sense measured with 
"variable metrics". Did you trust that anybody would take care of any 
speed limit without any enforcement?
Don't aspect that anyone would respect the others without a clever and 
efficiently enforced rule.
Look at what is happening with JT65, PSK and ROS and all other so called 
digital modes all over the RTTY sub bands. What started as a gentleman 
agreement  is by now a perfect right to do anything onto theirs so 
politely assigned segments. I know that I am mixing FCC rules and 
international regions band plans but that is it. I am simply ashamed for 
any and each DX expedition that use 18.100 MHz for the split TX QRG, PSK 
and JT signal continue to go over and over jamming the DX station 
responding to the the other half of the world. There is no way to come 
back for some hours, no way to understand others.
I'd never been on your side of the pond, but from this side any signals 
would arrive quite the same. There are no walls that work forever to 
segregate RF signal around US. Then it will also became more politic and 
IARU will shortly fire out just another band plan. Similar to the 
criminal 50MHz band plan we have here now, RTTY is well inside a sub 
band for FM signals at 50.600 Hz.  I have my school time 
telecommunications manuals on fire. It's unbelievable. (here we have 
different chunks on 50MHz, I is only 50-51 for example)

Compromises are the rules by now, but compromises have not to clash so 
badly with the laws of physics. As anyone could understand as cars crash 
may happen.  Driving and spitting one compromise over another it's not a 
good politic, it's just a swimming exercise. Giving anything to anyone 
is how compromises are made. Best practices are on books, life is 
different. Anyway, anybody could write another book of best practices, 
why not.

Sorry to disagree Paul. Believe me I would have preferred a lot to be 
agreeing with you.

BTW, that BoD ARRL body it's the same that denied the existence of RTTY 
by itself for the DXCC?
Those Borg  of the BoD that wrote: resistance is futile, just Digital is 
enough.

But, anyway tell me if I could sign somewhere to avoid this mischief.

Hope that my poor English wouldn't be too hard to be read.

                   73 de iw1ayd Salvo

PS that's show me as not only here we have those so comprehensive peoples.

On 27/07/2013 18:00, rtty-request at contesting.com wrote:

> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 22:39:49 -0400
> From: Paul Stoetzer<n8hm at arrl.net>
> To:rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL issues Official Reply: Re 2.8KHz HF digital
> 	BW
> Message-ID:<51F332F5.10706 at arrl.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> My opinion is that we should have the flexibility to do whatever we can
> do within a 2.8 kHz bandwidth (including multiple carrier modes, spread
> spectrum, etc.). I think voluntary band plans is good enough. Nobody is
> going to transmit a 2.8 kHz wide digital signal at 14.025 MHz.
>
> There are many other countries that regulate on bandwidth and generally
> let hams do whatever they want in a normal SSB channel width. We don't
> see chaos from that!
>
> 73,
>
> Paul, N8HM