[SECC] [RTTY] ARRL Bandwidth Proposal

[K4SB]

This is a post I received from the RTTY Reflector. I must admit I
don't understand all the ramifications, but many other posts on
different reflectors have stated that WinLink
would create havoc on all the bands. So, FYI

73
Ed

> http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1
 
It might be a good idea to figure out how it will impact RTTY
contesting and DXing if the FCC agrees and then send your comments to
bandwidth at arrl.org and to your Division Director.

My own suggestion is to demand that the proposed petition be changed
so that ALL unattended or automatic operations are ONLY allowed in
areas where transmissions over 500 Hz are allowed.
 
It is important to realize that significance of the 200 Hz, 500 Hz,
and 3000 Hz thresholds  is that no signals wider than the threshold
are allowed higher than the threshold frequency, but that signals more
narrow than the threshold are still allowed wherever the  wider
signals are allowed.
 
In practical terms, this means that Winlink could still use Pactor-II
(500 Hz wide) where Pactor-III (2400 Hz wide) is used during the time
Winlink was transitioning from Pactor-II to Pactor-III and SCAMP.
 
Disallowing unattended transmissions, where either end of the link is
unattended, would
eliminate the QRM from Pactor mailboxes to CW, PSK31, RTTY, MFSK16,
and other digital
modes, that is currently such a problem, without harming Winlink's
ability to handle their 150,000 emails for their currently 0.7% of the
US hams.