wrote:
wrote:
This nonsense needs to be killed FAST and killed NOW. It represents
gross overregulation. It's HQ trying to fix a system which isn't
broken. Again. It's time to rise up against it en masse.
Well, I don't know about that.
First off, what, exactly, does the proposal recommend? If I read it
correctly, it would subdivide the CW/data bands by signal bandwidth,
rather than having anything allowed anywhere, as it pretty much is
today. PSK31 on 7003 is legal right now. So is 850 Hz shift RTTY on
14010.
Right. And there hasn't been a fatility yet. After how many years . . .
?
It would also allow the development and use of modes that are now not
allowed, or relegated to the 'phone bands.
Might be's and maybes don't count. Making provisions for modes which
don't exist is like a state buying up real estate for highways which
may or may not ever be built. As far as mode development space is
concerned there are vast open spaces in the bands above 30 Mhz which
are begging for experimental work.
For example, you can't legally use digital voice outside the voice
bands, even if you figure out how to do it in a 500 Hz bandwidth.
There's also a rather arcane limit on the symbol rate allowed,
regardless of the bandwidth used.
Develop it up the spectrum then petition the FCC to take it down into
the HF bands. IF it fits and has real potential for volume use. But I'm
not holding my breath waiting for any such thing to happen. Nine years
ago this month the League petitioned the FCC to allow the development
and use of ham spread spectrum comms at the behest of TAPR and the FCC
obliged. I have yet to hear about the first-ever ham SS QSO. In my
opinion the much-ballyhood "digital revolution in ham radio" is 99% hot
air so far despite the fact that there are no regulatory impediments to
the development of the technologies which could be used on HF.
Including digital voice comms.
The whole robot/Winlink thing is a related but distinct issue.
I agree with that and the problem of unmanned stations*must* be
addressed. But not by playing top-to-bottom 52 Pickup with the HF ham
band regs.
The way I see it, the best solution is to have the following:
- Part of the band that's
Take 80 meters:
3500-3575: CW only
3575-3625: "Narrow" data and CW - but no robots
3625-3675: "Wide or narrow" data and CW - but no robots.
3675-3725: All data and CW modes - including robots, Winlink, etc.
I strongly support boxing in the robots but I'd much rather leave the
rest of it alone to allow Darwinian-type evolution take care of the
rest of the modes under the existing regs.
What's the dividing line between "wide" and "narrow" data? I'd say
1000
Hz - if it's narrower than 1000 Hz it's "narrow". Otherwise it's
"wide".
Existing Generals, Advanceds and Extras keep what they have. Novices
and Techs with HF get 3525 to 3725 CW, at the same power level
they're
currently allowed.
Other bands would be similar. The 40 meter problems will improve as
hams outside Region 2 get more kHz - the US should set up its plan
for
the future (worldwide 7000-7300 exclusive amateur)
By doing what? Most if not all countries outside the U.S. including
Canada allow voice all the way down to 7.000. Is that what you're
suggesting? And how would that fit the ARRL proposal??
Why not?
Because what you're suggesting and what the League is suggesting
amounts to a welfare system to protect CW and the other narrow modes.
73 de Jim, N2EY
w3rv