The ARRL RM-11708 "FAQ" is extremely one sided and full of "spin". For the real details - including ARRL's history of double dealing with regard to Winlink and ARRL's behind the scenes management of the Winlink network, please see SaveCW dot com or Save RTTY dot com.
What ARRL's FAQ doesn't say is that RM-11708 only benefits PACTOR 4 and there is no credible "threat" from any other wideband, low symbol rate protocol in spite of the "straw man" in ARRL's own petition. However, ARRL insists on proposing rules that would allow SSB-width data signals that would interfere as many as 15 RTTY signals, 25 CW signals, 45 PSK31 signals or more than 100 JT9 signals (based on the comparative "necessary bandwidth") to operate anywhere in the non-phone portions of the HF bands. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2014-06-18 4:27 PM, Chip Stratton wrote:
It might behoove one to learn more about this rule-making petition before making comment, particularly since it seems to me a "straw man" was set up to knock down and encourage opposition. Here is a brief ARRL faq on the subject: http://www.arrl.org/rm-11708-faq 73 Chip AE5KA ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to li...@subich.com
______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
