think my comments on RM-11708 went thru.
This is very serious to ANYONE who wants to retain "narrow band" digital
communications like JT9 and PSK31 and RTTY!! Also to CW Dxers and
contesters! If this passes, it will change amateur radio as we have
known it forever. There will be no "weak signal" operation possible
with the onset of digital noise in the analog receiver.
IF THIS IS REALLY A "NECESSARY" DIGITAL MODE, it belongs somewhere in a
segment of the phone band sub-band and NOT THE narrow band digital and
CW band.
I think this is REALLY a "back door" attempt to silence "Continuous
wave" telegraphy......really!
I hope the old timers and the "newbies" who are still hanging on to CW
will write comments against this "sneaky move" ARRL is backing to
satisfy mostly the "Yacht crowd" who want to access the internet via HF
radio! It will violate the "300 baud or less" rule of keeping wideband
digital OUT of the narrow band "digital" space!
Don't rely on the FCC to "nix" this RM as there isn't any "real"
engineers at the FCC anymore, just lawyers, "bean counters" and
political hacks
running things there now. Proof of this is higher authorities bypassing
FCC and making rules that stand now in the new 60 meter band.
Please add your voices to the protest against RM-11708!
73,
Sandy W5TVW
On 6/23/2014 8:13 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Perhaps others like me are unaware of this proposed FCC rule that would allow
digital communication modes 2.8 kHz in width to be used robotically in the CW
and data
sub-bands without regard to interference. ARRL supports this and evidently
initiated it.
http://www.arrl.org/files/media/News/RM-11708%20Briefing%20Memo.pdf
However, information on websites savecw.com and saveRTTY.com indicates
it would cause grave interference with CW and narrow digital modes.
There is evidently a short window of opportunity to submit comments to the FCC
about this, and there are instructions on the noted websites for how to do this
online within just a few minutes.
If you google for RM-11708 you can read some well-reasoned comments submitted
by other hams to the FCC electronic docket.
I can't evaluate the claims being made about ARRL's motivation but it seems
important not to allow such bad interference, so I submitted a comment.
Julie KT4JR
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[email protected]
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [email protected]
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[email protected]
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [email protected]
