[RTTY] Question...

[David Cole]

Hi Joe,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my query, and for engaging in a
discussion about this subject in this forum.

I found and looked over the "Symbol Rate" article in September QST,
under the "It Seems to Us", column in order to better discuss/understand
this subject.

My initial reaction to your position is as follows:

1.  If commercial operations are happening on the Ham bands, than that
should be dealt with as a rules violation, having nothing to do with new
rules making.

2.  Modifying possible new rules to take in to account the posited lack
of enforcement, and then further positing that this lack of enforcement
will continue, only serves to reinforce the act of violating the rules
in the first place, by building into the very rule making infrastructure
inherent assumptions that the rule breaking will continue.

Item 2 seems wrong to me, it seems to me that if there is a problem with
commercial use of the Amateur Radio bands, then that issue should be
dealt with directly, separating it from all other activities.

I am totally unfamiliar with this issue, so perhaps you can fill me in
on some of the data I am missing:

1.  Why would the ARRL protect commercial Winlink operations in the ham
bands?

2.  Has this been going on for a long time?

3.  Has it been reported to the FCC, if so what happened?

4.  Has it been reported to the ARRL, if so what happened?

My initial fear after reading some of the posts here was that there
would be digital signals all over the bottom 25 KHz., of the bands.  

I do not believe this will happen because it has not happened yet, and
the current digital operational rules allow digital in that portion.
Make no mistake about it, I like my CW, and I will write the FCC if I
believe this will end CW.  I just don't see it as ending CW...  Can you
help me understand that position please?


-- 
Thanks and 73's,
For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
www.nk7z.net
for MixW support see;
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mixw/
for Dopplergram information see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dopplergram/ 


On Sun, 2013-07-28 at 15:16 -0400, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: 
> > Your position posits that there are already commercial users on the
> > ham bands now, and that once allowed to go broadband, (so to speak),
> > they will then switch to that mode. Is this true? Are there
> > commercial users on the bands now?
> 
> Yes.  Winlink 2000/SailMail/SCS Technologies are commercial users
> against whom there has been no FCC enforcement because they operate
> with the protection of certain individuals and special interests at
> ARRL.
> 
> Much of the traffic handled by Winlink 2000/Sailmail networks is
> entirely commercial in nature and it passes without any system operator
> review.
> 
> 73,
> 
>     ... Joe, W4TV
> 
> 
> On 7/28/2013 10:52 AM, David Cole wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > That does not explain why switching from mode based to bandwidth based
> > enforcement will change anything.  Your position posits that there are
> > already commercial users on the ham bands now, and that once allowed to
> > go broadband, (so to speak), they will then switch to that mode.  Is
> > this true?  Are there commercial users on the bands now?
> >
> > Not trying to start a fight here, trying to understand why the fuss
> > about this.  On the surface it seems OK to me...  However, I do a lot of
> > CW, and I saw one post talking about someone opening up a 2.5 KC Wide
> > signal down at 14.025...  Does the current proposal not limit to
> > sub-bands?  Also several people I respect here are not for it, so I must
> > be missing something, as it seems innocent to me...
> >
> > Where can I get a look at the proposal as it will be submitted to the
> > FCC.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty