[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Don AA5AU]

I'm trying to get a grasp on all this. I'm guessing that the ARRL has requested this change to 2.8 kHz to allow Pactor 4 which uses 2.4 kHz. Is this correct?

One Pactor 4 signal could wipe out all PSK, JT-65 and JT-9 signals on certain bands, all at the same time. Is this correct?

And who's pushing this from the commercial end? SCS? And Pactor 4 is used by the Maritime industry to pass email?

73, Don AA5AU



>________________________________
> From: Kok Chen <chen at mac.com>
>To: RTTY Reflector <rtty at contesting.com> 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:32 PM
>Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users
> 
>
>
>On Nov 20, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Kai wrote:
>
>> I think that discussion should center around what the BW limit [should] be for digital signals. The answer will likely be something between 2200 Hz and 2800 Hz, because signals as wide as 2200 Hz are already permitted. It's good to discuss this.
>
>For conversational (keyboard, human-to-human) digital modes, 300 Hz to 500 Hz is ample, and wide enough to use statistical detection methods that take advantage of the frequency diversity aspects of selective fading on the HF bands.
>
>300 Hz is also sufficient to do weak signal experiments to your heart's content.
>
>The only reason anything wider is needed is to transmit massive amounts of "data" or digital voice.
>
>Unless there is some enforceable rule that controls mutual interference between conversational mode users and data mode users, the proposed change by the ARRL only opens all of us to even worse QRM.  Even a 1 kHz signal in the midst of an RTTY contest or pileup can completely ruin it.  That is what is so wrong with the ARRL proposal.
>
>73
>Chen, W7AY
>
>_______________________________________________
>RTTY mailing list
>RTTY at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
>