[RTTY] ARRL Symbol rate proposal

[Kai]

The1 and 2 IARU region band plans are very similar; region 3 lays out bands by 
mode, see the links:
    http://www.iaru-r2.org/band-plan/
1 and 2 recommend up to 2700 Hz in what are the USA phone bands.
Notwithstanding, USA AMers use up to 6 kHz in parts of the 75 m band,
as they should! Every mode has its adherents.
The IARU band plans are just that: plans - voluntary plans, they do not have the 
force of regulations.
We have band plans in the USA as well (without the force of law), and most hams 
respect them.
The "RTTY bands" expand a bit during contests, and contract (sometimes to zero! 
no one to be found!)
during other times. Good to have the flexibility.
As a bunch, we generally do a very good job of self-regulation.

73
Kai, KE4PT



On 10/19/2013 5:39 PM, Andreas Rehberg wrote:
> Probably they won't help. A bandwidth oriented bandplan has been in place in IARU region 1
> for many years. Well, and the earth still turns - see
> http://iaru-r1.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=175&Itemid=127
> Joe will say that that can't be compared because there's a much higher ham population in the US.
> But how many are really active on HF?
> http://g7vjr.org/2013/04/how-many-dxers-are-there-in-the-world/
>
> Andy, DF4WC/N6NNA
>   
>
> Gesendet: Samstag, 19. Oktober 2013 um 20:07 Uhr
> Von: WW3S<ww3s at zoominternet.net>
> An: rtty at contesting.com
> Betreff: Re: [RTTY] ARRL Symbol rate proposal
> I'd be up for a petition type thing, however, I'm not sure signatures from out of the country would hold much weight, perhaps some comments from groups such as the RSGB or DARC or other countries amateur radio groups would carry more weight....
>
> 73, Jamie WW3S
>
> On 10/19/2013 1:08:10 PM, Kok Chen (chen at mac.com) wrote:
>> By the way, let me float this to the RTTY community -- do you prefer that
>> we submit individual comments to the FCC, or do you prefer that we
>> together draft out something for interested parties to sign (and tout their
>> own credentials, if need be).
>>
>> I know that there is already at least one effort to collect as much
>> documentation as possible to counter
>> ARRL's lame idea. I have been in the CC of emails of such activity, and have also participated in the private discussions.
>>
>> If a collective, well thought out comment is publish before any FCC deadline, would you prefer to sign that instead of submitting your own?
>>
>> I have not floated this idea to anyone yet, I am interested in what the community prefers, and we'll
>> see if the folks who are already drafting a comment (let's call them "the usual suspects" of RTTY HI HI) would be willing to let others add their names.
>>
>> BTW, the signatures do not have to be limited US licensed hams, since QRM can travel far and wide and affect everybody, including SWL.
>>
>> 73
>> Chen, W7AY
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found%2
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty[http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty]
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty