[RTTY] ARRL

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> The beef with 11708 was putting wideband where other modes (read
> narrow band low power) were presently operating.

The proposal *still* does nothing to prevent wideband modes from
operating where other digital modes operate.  This is only a
*band plan* - not FCC restriction on automatic operation anywhere
by the "auto-responders".

> New proposal addresses concerns about automatic signal detection,
> etc.

The new proposal has *no* requirement that ACDS have effective,
operational "channel busy" detectors.

> Is it progress that has shorts tied in a knot? Sorry to be blunt,
> but there should be an accommodation to allow for new modes and
> stuff, including EMCOM.

There is plenty of accommodation for new modes as long as they
follow the established "listen before you transmit" principle.
EMCOM has literally 10s of MHz in VHF and UHF spectrum more
appropriate to local/regional communications than the very
narrow bands in which HF digital operations are permitted.  EMCOM
is simply a fig leaf that Director Woolweaver and former Director
Brodson trot out in an attempt to shield the real beneficiaries
of this spectrum grab.  There is no uniform plan for the effective
use of wideband ACDS in any EMCOM scenario.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 2015-03-01 11:16 PM, Ed Karl wrote:
> Realistically folks,
>
> We gained an 80 meter phone band which is lightly populated ...
> (3600-3800).
> The beef with 11708 was putting wideband where other modes (read narrow
> band
> low power) were presently operating.
>
> Same for 7100-7125, little or no present operation at all.
>
> New proposal addresses concerns about automatic signal detection, etc.
>
> There should be NO operation on the precious WARC bands, particularly 30
> meters.
>
> Is it progress that has shorts tied in a knot? Sorry to be blunt, but
> there should be an
> accommodation to allow for new modes and stuff, including EMCOM.
>
> Lastly, divulge un- encrypting methods for select OO's to police the
> traffic so rendered.
> There recently was congratulatory emails regarding possible rescue at
> sea thanks to
> Winlink . No definite answer as to "was the station a ham?"
>
> There are numerous folks wandering around the Caribbean and Pacific with
> ham rigs
> who didn't bother to get type accepted and licensed HF radios. Of
> course, under
> "emergency" communications the claim is no license is necessary. By
> their very words
> and actions they intend to violate the rules and should be dealt with
> accordingly.
>
> Anyway, that's my thoughts, such as they are ...
>
> 73
>
>
> ed K0KL
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>