[RTTY] RM-11708 question

[Terry]

Thanks Kai,

The "ERRATUM" filing makes much more sense.

Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kai
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 5:06 PM
To: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] RM-11708 question

Terry,
You need to look at the "ERRATUM" filing:
    http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520959653
as well, where that ARRL makes a correction to their original proposal.
Nothing changes in the text, but the proposed changes to the regulations are
a bit different than filed originally.

The entire list of proposed changes to the regulations is in the Appendix,
pages
3-6 (of the "ERRATUM" filing), really
just those four footnotes on p 6 to Table 97.305(c). If the FCC adopts
RM-11708, that is entirely what the regs would look like.
There is no proposal to change anything else.

Strike outs means delete current text, underline mean add this text.

So in that context, the phrase in the supporting text, "If there is to be
one" means that "if there is to be a BW limitation, where today there is no
limitation [except for 2-FSK-RTTY]".
Read the text in the context of the actual proposed changes shown on p 6 of
the ERRATUM document.

73
Kai, KE4PT




On 3/16/2014 5:30 PM, Terry wrote:
> Folks,
>
>
>
> Sorry if this has been asked before but in reference the filing that 
> the ARRL made to the FCC:  
> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520958815
>
>
>
> On page 11 there is a line that says  "While specification of any 
> maximum bandwidth for HF data emissions, and if there is to be one, 
> what it should be are both reasonably debatable topics, ARRL suggests 
> that on balance, a maximum bandwidth for data emissions in the HF 
> spectrum should be 2.8 kilohertz."
>
>
>
> The key wording that bothers me is  "if there is to be one".   If I read
> this correctly, the ARRL is saying we would really like to de-regulate 
> digital emissions with no bandwidth limit,  but if a bandwidth is needed,
> 2.8 KHz is reasonable.   If I'm reading this correctly,  the FCC might
come
> back with  maximum bandwidth greater than 2.8 KHz or remove it all
together?
> Surely I am not reading that correctly.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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