[RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

[Jeff Blaine]

Dave,

I hope you are right.  But it seems to me that the case (auto vs. remote 
control stations are two different beasts) is contingent on either the FCC 
having explicitly defined these two things in such a way that existing law 
already supports their difference.

Do we know if the FCC has a definition on the two?

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

-----Original Message----- 
From: Dave AA6YQ
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:31 PM
To: 'Ron Kolarik' ; 'RTTY'
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

Automatically controlled stations are not remotely-controlled stations, and 
vice versa; thus section IV would not enable the use of
2800 hertz for automatically controlled stations.

My understanding is that WinLink servers are automatically controlled 
stations. If my interpretation is correct, these would remain
limited in bandwidth to 500 hertz.

If WinLink or any other network of automatically controlled stations are 
advertising the availability of HF servers whose bandwidth
is greater than 500 hertz, I'd appreciate a URL.

      73,

            Dave, AA6YQ

-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Kolarik
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:20 PM
To: Dave AA6YQ; RTTY
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users

Dave that looks like more lawyer type weasel words. It says it does not
change the status of AUTOMATICALLY controlled stations. Look at Sec. IV 
where
the remotely controlled stations are permitted 2.8khz bw. I don't know how
many fully automatic stations are left on the air except for a few packet
operations, just another slightly misleading part of this monstrosity.

Ron
K0IDT


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave AA6YQ" <aa6yq at ambersoft.com>
To: <rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL attack on current RTTY users


> Section II.8 of
>
> <http://www.arrl.org/files/media/News/Petition%20for%20Rule%20Making%20AS-FILED%2011%2015%202013.pdf>
>
> restates the 500 hertz bandwidth limit on automatically controlled 
> stations
> operating in the HF subbands specified by 97.221.
> Footnote 11 says "there is no proposal herein to change the nominal 
> bandwidth
> limitation for automatically controlled stations
> transmitting data emissions".
>
> Thus the ARRL's proposal would if adopted not result in any expansion in 
> either the
> bandwidth or HF spectrum available to
> automatically controlled stations.
>
> Has anyone reached a different conclusion?
>
>       73,
>
>              Dave, AA6YQ
>

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

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3629/6361 - Release Date: 11/23/13

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