Before we file the erratum, is there any chance our petition could inadvertently affect any digital voice modes currently permitted in the HF bands (i.e., the old is-it-phone-or-is-it-data question)? If so, 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] On Behalf Of Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 9:54 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:22106] RM-11708 erratum In one respect the criticism being voiced about our RM-11708 petition has some merit. This is with regard to the addition of "unspecified digital codes" language to 97.307(f)(3). This change is not discussed at all in the 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. The revised proposed 97.307(f)(3) will read: "Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in §97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. The authorized bandwidth is 2.8 kHz." By the way, in 1995 the FCC clarified that "specified digital code" is any digital code that has its technical characteristics publicly documented. All of us who reviewed the draft and missed this are deeply sorry for the confusion thus caused. 73, Dave K1ZZ