[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Jeff Blaine]

Not to worry Don, I think the ARRL is really saying it like this:

If you like your data modes bandplan, you can keep it.  PERIOD!

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

-----Original Message----- 
From: Don Hill AA5AU
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:28 PM
To: 'RTTY Reflector'
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

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

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