[RTTY] ARRL Symbol rate proposal

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

 > OK, help me (us) out here.  The League will say "no, that's not what
 > this is about" whether it is or not, so what could they point to to
 > make what they say true?

There is nothing they can point to to refute the argument that 2.8 KHz
strictly benefits PACTOR IV ... it is the *only* format that requires
such bandwidth currently used in amateur radio.

 > I share your concern about turning all HF digital bands over to
 > SailMail, but we need to be ready with counter-arguments as well.

The appropriate *counter proposal* is that the FCC should:

1) *remove* the current prohibition on RTTY/DIGITAL in the current
    "phone" bands - certain bands like 80 and 17 meters are already
    overcrowded with current RTTY, PSK31, JT65 and JT9 activity.
2) apply the new "2.8 KHz" standard only at 3600-4000, 7125-7300,
    14150-14350, 21200-21450, 28300-29700, 50100-5400 and 144100-148000
    KHz.  Limit bandwidth in all other frequencies below 148 MHz to
    500 Hz.
3) Prohibit *all* automatic operation (including the so called "semi-
    automatic" or "response only" operation) *other than* on those
    frequencies where the authorized bandwidth is 2.8 KHz or greater.
4) require that *all* automatic operations include *functioning*
    busy channel detection that prevents transmission if there is any
    activity, in any mode, within +/- 1.5 KHz of the channel center.
5) require that a station using any digital mode with a bandwidth
    greater than 500 Hz identify in PSK31 or SSB at least every
    *five* minutes to permit identification of interfering sources.
6) require that any station operating in automatic mode provide a
    *PUBLISHED TELEPHONE NUMBER* (e.g. in QRZ.com) at which the licensee
    can be notified of interference and the licensee must terminate all
    transmission within 30 minutes of time at which a phone call is
    *initiated*.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 10/19/2013 11:47 AM, Peter Laws wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ron Kolarik <rkolarik at neb.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> with Winlink, search 'Winlink wants your frequencies" for the last
>> time this came around under 'band segmentation by bandwidth'.
>> Unless PIII unleashed all over the cw/digital band segments is your
>> idea of a good thing it needs to be killed in it's present form. My
>
> OK, help me (us) out here.  The League will say "no, that's not what
> this is about" whether it is or not, so what could they point to to
> make what they say true?
>
> I share your concern about turning all HF digital bands over to
> SailMail, but we need to be ready with counter-arguments as well.
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>