> Mark N5RFX wrote: > I am disappointed that the FCC did not elaborate on the > purpose of Section 97.307(f) which limits specified > RTTY or data emissions to a symbol rate not to > exceed 300 bauds... > Why is that there? > The FCC has spoken and the status quo prevails. Hi Mark,
This FCC order means so much more than affirmation of the status quo. It gives us a rare window of observation into FCC's internal trends toward support for modernization and progress. It very significantly shows the willingness of the FCC to open the door to change in several areas toward digital advancement and away from prior technologically adverse, artificial, or archaic constraints. It now seems quite clear from FCC's considered and reasoned statements in the petition denial order, that the only reason the 300 baud limit still exists is as a remnant of past history that serves no useful purpose in today's digital communications technology. As you know, it is common in USA for antiquated "blue laws" to continue on the books, while being effectively rendered useless or obsolete due to changes in society or advancements in technology. Congratulations, and on behalf of the majority of the greater amateur radio community, we thank you very much for your petition, Mark. A result of it is that we may possibly better project the possible outcome of future FCC rulemaking opportunities, within perhaps a wider venue, to include abolishment of baud limits altogether. Indeed, baud limit is now considered not simply superfluous, but counterproductive to the primary purpose of USA's Amateur Radio Service toward advancement of the radio art. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA > At 08:47 PM 5/7/2008, expeditionradio wrote: > >In FCC's official consideration statements, FCC > >specifically supports no finite limit of bandwidth for > >digital data emissions for the amateur radio service. > > FCC said that imposition of such limits might > >impede experimentation and technological innovation.
