[RTTY] RM-11708

[Matthew Pitts]

And everyone assumes that the system that shall not be named is capable of some of the things they see implied in comments or the development team behind it would ever consider adding them. They also assume that comments made on a radio show (or whatever it was) by a certain individual associated with that group apply to software used now by them. 

On the subject of busy channel detection, it does work and is implemented in all software and hardware used. What is often overlooked is that once the connection has been made, it is extremely difficult to continue analysis of the channel to keep from interfering with users outside the initial connection bandwidth. Also, with the exception of Pactor hardware, the software modems do have visual means of detection of signals in the passband. 

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU 

On October 15, 2016 9:59:17 AM EDT, Michael Adams <mda at n1en.org> wrote:
>I'm going to preface this by saying: I'm generally _for_ removing the
>speed limit, but I want to see a narrower bandwidth limit imposed upon
>part of the band than either the ARRL or FCC are calling for.
>
>That being said...I can see two understandable reasons why a person
>might want to oppose removing the 300 bps limit:
>
>1. An argument can be made that removing the limit will eventually
>increase demand for fast data modes and systems that use them, due to
>the increased capabilities.  We already have issues sometimes, on some
>bands with competing demands for the limited bandwidth available;
>increasing demand will only aggravate those problems.
>
>2. Somewhat related, there are plenty of reports of poor operating
>behavior by folks who make use of a certain system that relies on fast
>data outside the US, and which will presumably benefit from fast data
>within the US.  The situation is made worse by poor behavior on the
>part of a few who retaliate against such actions.  It's understandable
>that a proposal that would benefit the system-that-shall-not-be-named
>should come with a few strings attached to address the problems
>associated with it.
>
>While I'm very skeptical that the FCC would buy into either of those
>lines of reasoning, they are valid points worth considering.
>
>Because of my skepticism, I'm inclined to think that any issues with
>the system-that-shall-not-be-named would be better addressed in a
>separate petition for rulemaking (getting League support would be
>ideal, but I wouldn't hold my breath), and that efforts for the
>remainder of the comment period would be best focused on discussing the
>potential issues with either a blanket 2.8kHz limit or a lack of a
>limit...not in a "the sky is falling" manner, but instead looking at
>potential unintended consequences best avoided.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.