[RTTY] RM-11708 has been amended.

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

 > and excludes no one (FCC "in the public interest" ruling).

This is not a "ruling" ... it was an argument made by the Commission
in reaching their decision in the /Mark Miller/ proceeding.  It has
no different standing than the Commission's argument in "Further Notice 
of Inquiry and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making" in Docket 20777
which said,  "... the permissible bandwidths of ASCII or other radio
teleprinter signals should be similar to the traditional bandwidths
associated with the use of the Baudot Code in the various frequency
bands."

It is an open question how the Commission might choose to balance the
two - whether they look at 2.2 KHz as exceeding what was intended in
20777 and therefor a mistake in enforcement, whether they accommodate
current 2.2 KHz activity by permitting it in the "automatic control
sub bands" while prohibiting it elsewhere (as in section 97.221),
whether they permit 2.2 KHz everywhere as the ARRL would like, or
whether they adopt some other approach.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 11/26/2013 9:35 PM, Kai wrote:
> Chen,
> Remember this crucial point:
> The only thing restricting BW today is the general unavailability of
> radios with SSB bandwidths greater than the average of 2.45 kHz BW.
> PACTOR3 was designed to use 2.2 kHz EXACTLY because wider would not fit
> in today's radios. That will change as SDR becomes more and more
> available, so:
> *We do need a BW limit*,
> The question reduces to what that BW should be, noting that 2.2 kHz
> accommodates all current users, and excludes no one (FCC "in the public
> interest" ruling).
>
> Pick a number between 2.2 and 2.8 kHz,
> argue for the number by providing evidence that anything higher than
> your number causes grievous harm to current user.
> That's where I got stuck!
>
> 73,
> Kai, KE4PT
>
>
>
> On 11/26/2013 7:03 PM, Kok Chen wrote:
>> ARRL has already amended their filing (thanks, Andy).
>>
>> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017478079
>>
>> It has removed the encryption clause that was put into 97.307(f)(3) in
>> the original petition.
>>
>> So, we can just focus on the remaining part of 97.307(f)(3) now:
>>
>> i.e.,
>>
>> (1) removal of symbol rate
>> and
>> (2) the 2,8 kHz bandwidth.
>>
>> 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
>