[RTTY] If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence

[Jeff AC0C]

Maybe it's my paranoia or imagination, but it seems to me that guys 
supporting 11708 are generally very careful to avoid saying "it would be a 
huge boom for email-via-HF!"

The fact is the R&D for weak signal or low power work is all narrow band. 
The drivers for something wider outside of the voice segment seems only to 
be Pactor-4 and it's hand-in-hand use as a higher speed enabler to more 
email-via-HF on the bands.

73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ron Kolarik
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 12:21 AM
To: RTTY at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] If you care about CW and RTTY - time is of the essence

A fine example of FUD, since neither the ARRL or FCC are changing 97.221 in 
any way, nor is it likely that any significant increase in interference will 
result with "new" technologies already having a means to prevent 
interference as part of their design.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


FUD?? No one said anything about 97.221, the olny thing being spread by 
proponents isn't FUD but rather
something more easily shoveled. How would Winlink react if I dumped a 10kHz 
wide OFDM signal on
the auto sub bands.

How's the ARDOP development coming? If this passes you'll be able to utilize 
all those wider versions,
got the LBT working on it yet?

Ron K0IDT

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty