[RTTY] Interesting quote ...

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Just more ARRL double talk about digital modes.  They want to expand
the RTTY/CW allocations when it suits their needs (and it is needed
on 80 meters).  However, they still pursue RM11708 to allow commercial
use of the CW/data allocations at 2.7 KHz bandwidth.

If anyone in the Executive ranks or on the Board at ARRL had an ounce
of intellectual honesty they would go back to their original proposal
to regulate emissions by bandwidth, propose moving the automatically
controlled digital modes to the top 25 KHz of each band greater than
200 KHz wide (where they could take advantage of the wider modes),
and insist that all modes that were not "copyable by ear" include
either a visual representation of channel occupancy (waterfall or
spectrum display) or an effective "channel busy" detector/lockout
calibrated to 125% of the maximum occupied bandwidth for the mode
involved.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 1/12/2016 8:59 PM, Ron Kolarik wrote:
> You could always ask your directors for clarification, there's a board
> meeting Jan 15-16
> by the way. It is a bit odd though, all the references to protecting
> narrow band just don't make
> sense......yet.
>
> Ron K0IDT
>
>
>
> On 1/12/2016 6:54 PM, Peter Laws wrote:
>> “ARRL has analyzed the regulatory limitations as part of a comprehensive
>> effort to make more efficient the use of those HF allocations, especially
>> with respect to encouraging further experimentation and proficiency in
>> **narrowband digital communications technologies**,”  (my emphasis)
>>
>> http://www.arrl.org/news/view/arrl-asks-fcc-for-minimal-but-necessary-changes-to-correct-reapportioning-error
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought we were supposed to be "harmonizing" all the HF bands at the
>> otherwise unique bandwidth used on 60 m?   Which is it?
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty