[RTTY] Fwd: RE: RM-11708 Outside US

[Ron Kolarik]

Sumner is still up to the same old games that played out before. The only thing
that has changed is the date on these links
http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6518309211

Oh, as far as "railroading" the RM I don't know what else to call it if hams had no
input in the process and didn't see the language until AFTER it went to the FCC.

ROn
K0IDT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dick Flanagan" <dick at k7vc.com>
To: "RTTY Reflector" <rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Fwd: RE: RM-11708 Outside US


> [Forwarded with permission]
>
> On 2014-04-23 10:51 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
>> Dick, I don't consider "that will be the end of amateur radio" to be a technical argument. How many times have we heard that over 
>> the years?
>>
>> It's not a criticism of anyone to say that they may not understand the present Part 97 rules governing HF data emissions unless 
>> they won't accept explanations. The rules were developed over a 60-year period and are rather arcane. Many people don't seem to 
>> realize that data modes with bandwidths that exceed 500 Hz have been in legal use for more than a decade. In 2008 the FCC denied 
>> RM-11392, a petition by N5RFX to limit necessary bandwidth to 1.5 kHz and 2.4 kHz, respectively, as a substitute for the 300 and 
>> 1200 baud limits. A 1.5 kHz limit would have prohibited Pactor-III among others but the FCC said: "...we do not believe that 
>> changing the rules to prohibit a communications technology currently in use is in the public interest."
>>
>> I respectfully disagree with the characterization of "railroading." The symbol rate issue and the rationale for 2.8 kHz bandwidth 
>> was explained in the September 2013 QST editorial, which generated very little comment at the time. The ARRL Executive Committee 
>> did not authorize the filing of the petition until more than a month later. The proposed rule changes were deliberately limited 
>> to what was required to accomplish a narrow objective of permitting more efficient use of the bandwidth that was already being 
>> used for data communications, while at the same capping the bandwidth so that future developments would not be based on wider 
>> bandwidths.
>>
>> 73,
>> Dave Sumner, K1ZZ
ting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty