[RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted

[Jim W7RY]

I think you need to double check a few things here... Or can I fire up 
the old wide band generator on 160 meters and cover the entire band at once?


73
Jim W7RY


On 2/26/2014 11:08 AM, Kai wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
>