[RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted

[Al Kozakiewicz]

Michael makes an excellent point.

Content, modulation mode and bandwidth are intertwined when it comes to analog signals.  With digital, all transmissions are syntactically identical, differering only in the application of the content.  Whether a series of random numbers, voice, email, a digitized recording of Jonny B. Goode - it doesn't matter with digital encoding as all content looks the same in the frequency domain.

Al
AB2ZY

________________________________________
From: RTTY [rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Michael Clarson [wv2zow at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:11 PM
To: Don AA5AU
Cc: RTTY
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted

If its applicable, yet beyond the scope of their petition, than they should
withdraw their petition and resubmit. Their petition wants to replace one
outmoded restriction (symbol rate) yet keep the also outmoded distinction
between data sent for voice or image being somehow different than data used
for text. In today's world, if its digital, its data. Of course, the FAQs
include no mention of the various PACTOR modes, which allow file transfers.
Suppose, using PACTOR I send a JPG file? Is that not image? An audio file
of a voice recording. Is that not digital voice? --Mike, WV2ZOW


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Don AA5AU <aa5au at bellsouth.net> 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
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty