[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Jeff Blaine]

Kok,

Sorry for the confusion.

What I mean is that the document 28 from the ARRL, which is undersigned by 5 
hams on the ARRL committee - and that committee seems to contain two winlink 
proponents - and zero serious rtty contesters (or rtty dx or rtty 
rag-chewers, TBD).

This document is sent by the ARRL to the FCC; the ARRL speaking as a proxy 
for the American ham community at large.

My question is how this recommendation could possibly reflect the views of 
the RTTY community as a subset.  What it seems to reflect is the winlink 
community.  If that's the case, then why not just come out and call it what 
it is.  Maybe my viewpoint is too naïve or the subject is beyond my mental 
capacity to comprehend.  hi hi

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Kok Chen
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:09 PM
To: RTTY Reflector
Cc: Jeff Blaine
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users


On Nov 21, 2013, at 8:40 PM, Jeff Blaine wrote:

> So I'm not quite
> sure how this group can actually be said to represent the voice of the ham 
> community.

Be that as it may, I don't think that by itself that argument will sway the 
FCC commissioners one way or the other.  None of the commissioners are hams, 
much less have ever encountered the interference between disparate digital 
modes (including CW).  The only ham they will likely to encounter in the 
entire process is ARRL's paid counsel.

All the FCC Commissioners have is the ARRL proposal in front of them, and it 
is up to us, as individuals (and not lawyers), to argue *why* the RM as 
proposed by the ARRL is not in the interest of amateur radio.

Please remember that the petition is not about email, or LID sailors, or 
whether Pactor is legal because of Part 97.309.  It is about the removal of 
symbol rate (a.k.a. baud rate) limitation from Part 97.307.  The closer we 
focus on addressing that, the more likely our primary arguments won't get 
lost among other arguments that are not pertinent to lawyers.

It might help when sending in comments to the RM to include your experience 
with digital modes.  It won't hurt if you have used it before some of the 
wide bandwidth proponents were even born :-).

I also think that it will help if we were to point out unintended 
consequences of removing the symbol rate limit in 97.307.  We have the 
advantage that the only advise they got when drafting their petition are 
probably the proponents of removing symbol rate limitations.  They probably 
had no devil's advocate or even advice from someone who has used keyboard 
digital modes very much.

73
Chen, W7AY




_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty