[RTTY] Self serving lies from the ARRL Letter

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

 > Or is this a good idea? What are the chances of there being enough
 > comments against the present proposal to make the FCC turn it down?
 > Is it better to fight on one front or two?

Since an RM has been assigned to the ARRL's petition, I believe the
best chance for success now is to comment on that petition by saying
that removing the symbol limit is a good idea.  *However* since, in
setting the current symbol rates the Commission recognized that the
majority of amateur wanted bandwidths "compatible with those of
traditional radioteleprinter modes" the appropriate action is to
replace the language of 97.307 with a *500 Hz* occupied bandwidth
*not* 2.8 KHz as proposed by ARRL.

In support of the 500 Hz standard, one can cite that the most common
HF "RTTY, data" modes are RTTY, PSK31, JT65A, JT9, WSPR and QRSS
which in aggregate represent 80 to 90% of all digital activity and
all have an occupied bandwidth of 300 Hz or less (in many cases
much less).

One could further address ARRL's request for bandwidths of up to
2.8 KHz by allowing "RTTY, digital" in those portions of the HF amateur
bands (excluding 160, 60 and 30 meters) where "phone, image" modes are 
currently permitted.  Bandwidth of 2.8 KHz would be consistent with the
modes currently permitted in those allocations and would facilitate 
amateur experimentation with digital voice modes.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 11/22/2013 1:25 AM, Don Hill AA5AU wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> Since there is no way to file comments until the Commission assigns an RM number ... I recommend others file additional "Petitions
> for Rule Making" that asks that the maximum bandwidth in the current MF and HF "RTTY, Data" allocations be set at 500 Hz -
> "consistent with historical use of traditional radioteleprinter bandwidths" and other modern data modes such as PSK31, JT65A, JT9,
> etc, and that wider bandwidth digital modes such as PACTOR 3, PACTOR 4, M110A/B/C, ALE, etc. be grouped with phone and image
> transmission due to their 2.8 KHz compatible bandwidth.
>
> 73,
>
>      ... Joe, W4TV
>
> This is an excellent idea. I have actually been thinking about this very thing. I just don't know how to go about it. Anyone in this
> group have experience in doing this? It certainly need to be well thought out and well written.
>
> Or is this a good idea? What are the chances of there being enough comments against the present proposal to make the FCC turn it
> down? Is it better to fight on one front or two?
>
> Don AA5AU
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>