[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[David Cole]

Al,

Thank you for that link!  I now understand the dangers.
-- 
Thanks and 73's,
For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
www.nk7z.net
for MixW support see;
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mixw/info
for Dopplergram information see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dopplergram/info
for MM-SSTV see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MM-SSTV/info



On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 21:32 -0500, Al Kozakiewicz wrote: 
> A Google search returns lots of discussions of this proposal going back more than a decade.
> 
> Some of the arguments against contain the same spittle flecked invective hurled against the ARRL on a daily basis in the general class portion of the 80M phone band (a.k.a. "CB") because it's from the ARRL and contains the letters "A", "R" and "L"; and the second shooter/9-11 inside job conspiracy fans that believe the HF bands would be overrun by millions of yacht owning hams checking their email.
> 
> I'm all for dropping symbol rate restrictions.  But allowing 2.8 kHz bandwidth signals anywhere RTTY is allowed would be detrimental during contest weekends, when you can find RTTY operators well into the .100+ segments of the bands that are forbidden to SSB in the US but nowhere else in the world (a tangent I won't belabor here).  How many RTTY signals can coexist cheek to jowl in any 10 kHz segment of spectrum?  How many 2.8 kHz wide modes?
> 
> W8JI has a good explanation of the practical problems of intermixing wide and narrow bandwidth modes at http://w8ji.com/mixing_wide_and_narrow_modes.htm 
> 
> I'm not saying don't do it at all, but if you're going to allow 2.8 kHz wide digital modes, you have to restrict them to sub-segments, and not the entire digital segment.
> 
> Al
> AB2ZY
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Cole
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 7:49 PM
> To: rtty at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
> 
> Hi,
> 
> That would help me as well, I do not see how this harms RTTY, and if it does, I would like better understand.
> --
> Thanks and 73's,
> For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
> www.nk7z.net
> for MixW support see;
> http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mixw/info
> for Dopplergram information see:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dopplergram/info
> for MM-SSTV see:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MM-SSTV/info
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 16:18 -0800, Bill Turner wrote: 
> > Ben, could you post a brief summary of the proposed action including the
> > pros and cons?
> > 
> > This is just the kind of thing that should be debated here.
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > 73, Bill W6WRT
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty