[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Peter Laws]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Kai <k.siwiak at ieee.org> wrote:
> Thanks for the w8ji link. That was very instructional. But be careful. The
> signal occupied bandwidth (what we presume to want to regulate) does not
> always relate to the noise bandwidth (which relates to sensitivity).  JT65
> fro example sports a noise bandwidth of about 2.71 Hz (yes, Hertz), but an
> occupied bandwidth of 175 Hz. Furthermore when operated as Joe Taylor

It seems like I just saw an article about this very topic, Kai.
Where, oh where might that have been?  :-D


> The ARRL proposal does nothing more than to remove the archaic and no longer
> relevant baud rate definitions of digital modes. They opted instead to
> propose regulating digital signals by a maximum BW, and chose 2.8 kHz to
> harmonize with the FCC/NTIA regulatikon already in effect for the 60m
> channels.

I think that this is what bothers me the most.  "Harmonize" isn't the
right word here, I don't think.  When you harmonize something, isn't
it because that thing is an outlier and you want to make it like the
others?

Here, it's *exactly* the opposite.  The 60 meter channels were
initially restricted to USB 'phone centered on a particular frequency.
 So we have a channelized band (unlike any other allocation) thatt
uses *only* 'phone (unlike any other allocation), and it's USB (unlike
any other 'phone band at 40 meters and longer).

So we are going to make the majority of our allocations look like the
one unique allocation?  And that's harmonization?  -->
http://youtu.be/YIP6EwqMEoE?t=15s

Of course, the FCC has since allowed CW and digital modes to use these
channels, but 60 meters is still an odd-ball allocation unlike any of
our others.

Get rid of the baud rates if you must, but 2.8 kHz seems far too wide.