[RTTY] Director response

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> The CURRENT regs already have that "unspecified code" language in
> 97.307. The ARRL proposal does not have a "drafting error".

That is *incorrect*.  97.307(f)(3) currently says:

(3) Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed 
in §97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not 
exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift 
between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz.

ARRL would change that to:

(23) A RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in
§97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. A RTTY, data or multiplexed
emission using an unspecified digital code under the limitations listed
in §97.309(b) of this part also may be transmitted

The ARRL is adding unspecified digital codes *not currently authorized* 
in 97.307(f)(3).  *Read Part 97 and ARRL's Petition*.

As a point of fact *unspecified* digital codes are not permitted at
MF/HF - sections 97.307(f)(3) and 97.307(f)(4) do not authorize them
but sections 97.307(f)(5), 97.307(f)(6), and 97.307(f)(7) *authorize*
"unspecified digital codes" at VHF/UHF/microwave.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 11/26/2013 4:53 PM, Kai wrote:
> Ron,
> Hold on a sec...  Your Director got it badly wrong and is doing a
> serious disservice by guessing. The CURRENT regs already have that
> "unspecified code" language in 97.307.  The ARRL proposal does not have
> a "drafting error".
>
> Your Director really needs to know what actually is in the present regs
> and how it plays with the ARRL proposal, rather than guessing. Read the
> current regs, then see the ARRL Appendix for what they actually propose
> to change. It does make sense, the ARRL Appendix is correctly worded.
>
> I, for one, agree with the ARRL proposal, except that I'm still not sure
> about the 2800 Hz BW figure. Maybe it's ok, maybe it's too wide. But, so
> far, I can find no supportable cite-able evidence (not speculation or
> anecdote) that 2800 Hz would cause harm to current users.
>
> Respectfully
> Kai, KE4PT
>
>
> On 11/26/2013 3:49 PM, Ron Kolarik wrote:
>> I'm having another bad day and way behind on things, I'll get caught up
>> later but thought the group should know the respose I got from my
>> division
>> directror. I sent him some references to the IARU bandwidth limits and
>> also
>> asked about the language added/deleted in 97.307(f)(3)(4). It seems he
>> wasn't aware of it and said that hq told him it was  a "drafting
>> error" with the
>> "unspecified digital codes" at HF language and it will be addressed in
>> a corrected appendix. Guys you really need to hit your directors with
>> this and
>> maybe a few other points to find out exactly what they either don't
>> know or
>> what was kept from them. This stinks more every day.
>>
>> Ron
>> K0IDT
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>