[RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted

[Kai]

Don,
This may help. Here are a couple of  FAQ's they did not ask, here they are with 
my answers.

"What is the current limitation on bandwidth of digital emission (except 
two-tone RTTY) at MF and HF?"
The answer is:
What is permitted today with no changes in the regs, is digital signals (except 
two-tone RTTY) with the following bandwidths:
160m - 200 kHz BW
  80 m  - 100 kHzBW
  60m  - 2.8 kHzBW [confined to the center of the channels, including two tone RTTY]
  40 m - 125 kHzBW
  30 m - 50 kHzBW
  20 m - 150 kHzBW
  17 m - 42 kHzBW
  15 m - 200 kHzBW
  12 m - 40 kHzBW
  10 m - 300 kHzBW

The above are slightly lower for non-Extra class licensees in some bands.

"What is the bandwidth limitation on two-tone RTTY today?"
All MF and HF bands: 1.5 kHz, except 60 m channels where 2.8 kHz is permitted 
for all including RTTY.

"What is the data bandwidth limitation asked for in RM-11802?"
All MF and HF bands, all digital data emissions, including RTTY, limited to 2.8 
kHz.

In the MF and HF phone bands there are likewise no statutory BW limitations, but 
the widest that I know off is D-Star digital voice which occupies about 6 kHz, 
and good 'ole AM - also 6 kHz.

That's it. That's all there is.

73
Kai, KE4PT


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