[RTTY] RM-11708 FAQ posted

[Ron Kolarik]

Kai,
Sorry for the late reply, list messages are not coming through in a timely
manner.

I'm well aware there are no bandwidth limits currently and bandplans
are only suggestions but what the ARRL is asking for is a recipe for
disaster. They propose no limits on the 2.8kHz stations, no bandplan
in other words unless they get complaints but how do we identify the
stations causing problems in order to complain? There are certain groups
that don't play well with others now and some of the personalities involved
are impossible to deal with, how are you going to get them to follow a
bandplan?

The ARRL missed the boat on this again. They should have asked for 
data in the voice/image segments and lifting the 300 baud limit. It
sure would be nice to be having a SSB conversation and have the ability
to send a file a picture or whatever without having to move to the cw/data
segment to do it. It would be nice but that's not what the RM is about
according to the in favor comments.

The ARRL and a few others should be a little worried at this point about 
something that may make message handling on HF for marine and Emcomm
unnecessary. The Outernet timeline looks to be on schedule for launch next
summer and that's a game changer.

No more on this for now unless you want to go offlist.

73,
Ron
K0IDT
 

 
> On 2/27/2014 10:53 AM, Kai wrote:
>> Ron,
>> Answer:
>> Wide bandwidths are not prohibited under today's rules. Bandwidths of up
>> to 200 kHz depending on the MF-HF ham band (300 kHz at 10m band) are
>> *permitted* today in the digital sections of our bands. Under RM-11708
>> there would be a limit of 2.8 kHz, a massive DECREASE in the allowed BW
>> for Data/Digital modes.
>>
>> Band plans like we have already, and courteous operation (like most of
>> the RTTY community) are very good ideas.
>>
>> 73
>> Kai, KE4PT
>>
>>
>> On 2/27/2014 1:53 AM, Ron Kolarik wrote:
>>> Yup, trust us. This is what one question/answer should look like
>>>
>>> Q. Did ARRL evaluate the potential for interference to RTTY, CW and
>>> narrow bandwidth data modes that could result from an increase in
>>> wider-bandwidth data stations? A. Yes. we asked K5RAV and the rest of
>>> the ad hoc digital committee and they thought it was
>>> okey dokey fine. We'll put a bandplan in after we get enough
>>> complaints, we want a bandplan not regulation, it's easier to ignore a
>>> bandplan if no one can identify a station or content and
>>> no pesky regulations that carry the weight of law.
>>>
>>> The rest isn't much better and the cynic in me says I should provide
>>> new answers
>>> to all the questions and send them to Sumner but he has a history of
>>> ignoring input.
>>>
>>> Ron K0IDT