[RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

In fact that "complete reordering" is a lie.  Other than allowing
RTTY and data in areas where voice and image are currently authorized
the *only( change might be to move the automatic digital segments to
the top of each band so that automatically controlled digital systems
could avail themselves of the wider bandwidth.

Allowing RTTY and DATA in the voice/image segments would automatically
enforce a 2.8 KHz bandwidth (or as the rules state "bandwidth no more
than a communications grade voice signal").

ARRL - including the CEO and Chief Counsel - are *telling lies* to
support their agenda.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2/26/2014 12:47 PM, Don AA5AU wrote:
> I don't understand this one:
>
> 	* Shouldn’t 2.8 kilohertz bandwidth data emissions be restricted to the band segments where phone and image communications are permitted?-
> While some commenters have argued for that, it is far beyond the scope of the ARRL petition. It would require a complete reordering of the regulatory scheme for the HF bands which would be controversial, to say the least.
>
> I don't understand the part about having to completely reorder the regulatory scheme. That sounds like a bunch of malarkey.
>
> And are they trying to say the current proposal is not already controversial enough?
>
> Don AA5AU
>
>
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ron Kolarik <rkolarik at neb.rr.com>
>> To: RTTY <rtty at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:02 AM
>> Subject: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted
>>
>>
>> The ARRL FAQ is up
>> http://www.arrl.org/rm-11708-faq
>> I haven't had time to go through it yet.
>>
>> 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
>