Marty, I think the answer to your question is no, there is no inadvertent effect on digital voice modes which are currently permitted in the HF bands, though the symbol rate committee members are better able to address that point than I am. This erratum is both urgent and delicate, however, in terms of the perception of our petition as it was originally filed; and incorporating any other changes now is (in my view) unnecessary and risky. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com> To: 'Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ', K1ZZ' <dsumner@arrl.org>; 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Tue, Nov 26, 2013 2:14 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:22109] Re: RM-11708 erratum Before we file the erratum, is there anychance our petition could inadvertently affect any digital voice modes currentlypermitted in the HF bands (i.e., the old is-it-phone-or-is-it-data question)? Ifso, should our amendment contain an explicit exclusion for digital voice? 73, Marty N6VI From:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org[mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] OnBehalf Of Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 20139:54 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:22106] RM-11708erratum Inone respect the criticism being voiced about our RM-11708 petition has somemerit. This is with regard to the addition of "unspecified digitalcodes" language to 97.307(f)(3). This change is not discussed at all inthe body of the petition and was not intended to be included in the proposal.Chris is filing an erratum with a corrected appendix later today. Therevised proposed 97.307(f)(3) will read: "Only a RTTY or data emissionusing a specified digital code listed in §97.309(a) of this part may betransmitted. The authorized bandwidth is 2.8 kHz." Bythe way, in 1995 the FCC clarified that "specified digital code" isany digital code that has its technical characteristics publicly documented. Allof us who reviewed the draft and missed this are deeply sorry for the confusionthus caused. 73, DaveK1ZZ _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv