[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Don Hill AA5AU]

So in other words, even though many of us are not against removing the symbol rate, for the sake of argument, we are to tell the FCC
that we ARE in fact against removing the symbol rate in order to preserve the existing bandwidth regulation. This is still a bit
confusing to me but hopefully I'll figure it out. So far, my director appears to be against the proposal. But I get the feeling the
ARRL is going to try to ramrod this thing through.

My post to the reflector regarding the RM assigned to this proposal was sent to the moderator for approval (ARRL conspiracy?).

It's RM-11708 and so far I haven't found it up on the FCC site yet although I'm not 100% I'm looking in the right place.

73, Don AA5AU

-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kok Chen
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:10 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