[RTTY] RM-11708

[Ron Kolarik]

Oh my, this won't end well and no I'm not going to touch it. One of the 
other
dinosaurs might want to chime in.......

Ron K0IDT


On 10/15/2016 1:02 AM, Lee - N2LEE via RTTY wrote:
> Bill, I am probably the odd man out here because I believe the FCC should adopt this change.
>
> But the issue is NOT bandwidth it is getting rid of the archaic Symbol Rate limit.
>
> Right now all data modes on HF are limited by 300 baud symbol rate. This means that as new
> compression and transfer protocols are developed we would be prevented from using them
> even if they use the exact same bandwidth we are using now.
>
> Also, by removing the 300 baud symbol rate the US would be brought inline with every other
> country. For example Canada and Mexico use the same HF frequencies we do but are not
> limited by symbol rate. So if this were and issue it would already be a problem. Which it isn�t.
>
> There is an awful lot of Chicken Little scare tactics and hyperbole about this topic.
>
> There is a need for the Amateur Service to move forward and allowing some form of increased
> symbol rate is overdue. CW, RTTY and narrow band JT modes are not going to change. But there
> is more and more of a need to transfer emergency traffic quickly and efficiently when cell and internet
> services are not available.
>
> Right we are limited to Packet and PSK-Mail at 300 baud but there are multiple open source, government standards and commercial protocols that can
> transfer 5 times the data in the exact same bandwidth.
>
> Personally I think arguing against this change sounds a lot like AMers who complained about SSB. Higher data rates are enviable. We have become a data
> oriented society.
>
> $.02
>
> Lee - N2LEE
>
>