"Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and
comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and
technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has
reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for
a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the
panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft ARRL
petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum by
emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC
recommendations at this point . . . "

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1

- - - - - - -

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.

w3rv

wrote in message
oups.com...
"Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and
comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and
technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has
reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for
a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the
panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft ARRL
petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum by
emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC
recommendations at this point . . . "

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1

- - - - - - -

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.

w3rv
\
Tell me about it. ARRL is acting more like Congress every day.

I can see it all now. PSK-31 on 7.003 wondering why his AGC is "jumping"
and his screen goes white.

Dan/W4NTI

As has been said before, if you think the ARRL or the FCC have
the best interests of amateur radio in mind when they do something,
then I have a bridge in Brooklyn and some desert real estate I would
like to sell you. And if you think Riley Holligsworth has anything on
his mind other than how much money he can make while he's still a
FCC employee and what company he will work for after retirement,
then you really are simple minded. Then again, informed sources say
Riley is greasing the skids after retirement to come back on board as
a rehired FCC annuitant.


Shalom & 73,

Rabbi Phil
Chief, Supreme San Hedrin Council

wrote in message
oups.com...
"Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and
comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and
technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has
reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for
a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the
panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft ARRL
petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum by
emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC
recommendations at this point . . . "

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1

- - - - - - -

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.

w3rv


I would like to see a comprehensive discussion of this proposed rule making
without it degenerating into name calling. This could revitalize a
newsgroup that is overdue for getting back on subject, that is, policy.

So far, I have four comments:

1. What experience and expertise do seven or eight old men (ARRL EC) in
Newington have, to qualify to make policy for the conduct of Amateur HF
operations? Let's see their operating logs or other evidence for the past
year where they have made 5 contacts per week avg. in the
CW/Data/AutoData/Voice intersection areas in the subject bands they are
including in their proposal. OK, let's make it easy, just show logs for
just SWLing those areas for 2 1/2 hrs per week. If they cannot produce,
then they should be excused from making policy on such far-reaching
implications.

2. While it may appear to be "overregulating" as someone pointed out, I take
the opposite view. K1ZZ says "Oh, bandwidth is too hard to define, let
alone measure, so lets just "say" we are going to restrict AutoDATA to 3.5
KHz and Semi-Auto DATA to 500 Hz, but we won't require measurement for
verification.

First of all, does anyone have a copy of the current rules and regs for
AutoDATA and Semi-AutoDATA operation on HF? I've been away a while, so
someone please point me to that in the Part 97. Let's get that established
first. For instance do those stations have to identify in CW or Voice(AM or
SSB) at any time? So how about some clear rules and regs for conduct of the
Auto and Semi-Auto stations.

Second, if they are going to refarm on "bandwidth", should not
"bandwidth" be redefined to a quantifiable measure? K1ZZ claims that
bandwidth is not necessary to measure, that it will be self-regulating.
Yeah, sure wink, wink! This works on voice HF where you can tune over to
the offending frequency and say "QLF", "QSY or QRT". Have you ever tried to
tell an unidentifiable robot station that it is running too broad a signal?
It is almost as difficult as telling K1MAN to QSY.;-) Everyone knows that
there is always great pressure to open up the bandwidth and increase
throughput on DATA. Soon you will soon find the HF AutoDATA's going to 16
KHz and Semi-AutoDATA's going to 3.5 KHz. If you ever do catch up with the
offender their retort would be: "But, hey, bandwidth is ill-defined, and I
don't have to measure it, so sue me!"

3. Am I prejudiced? Yes! My experience, living with AutoDATA's operating
in the 7.100 to 7.105 MHz for a few years was this: While I am trying to
work new novices and give them a new contact, in the only part of the novice
band not savaged by Foreign Broadcast, while gearing down to 5-10WPM, these
Auto Cowboys would fire up on our QSO. If you called CQ on "their"
frequency, they would turn you in to the FCC. Their idea of "sharing" in
the HF band was about the same as K1MAN's or W1AW's idea of sharing their
bulletin frequencies. So, in effect, is the ARRL EC campaigning to give the
Auto Cowboys their exclusive non-sharable subbands throughout the HF
spectrum? Take a look at K1ZZ's chart and add up the total AutoDATA
bandwidth across the HF spectrum. Now will we have the Semi-AutoDATA
operations spreading out from there? Hmmmmm!

4. Lest I be labeled a Luddite, I think that a robust Amateur HF Data
Network across the nation, managed by dedicated Hams, could be the
center-piece for revitalizing or defending our reason to exist as a service
in the public interest. However, such operations as SemiAuto and AutoDATA
need to be regulated in proportion to their inherent liability to wreak
havoc and do damage to current operations if unchecked.

--Clay
N4AOX

CCW N4AOX wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

"Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and
comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and
technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has
reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for
a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the
panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft ARRL
petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum by
emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC
recommendations at this point . . . "

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1

- - - - - - -

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.

w3rv



I would like to see a comprehensive discussion of this proposed rule making
without it degenerating into name calling. This could revitalize a
newsgroup that is overdue for getting back on subject, that is, policy.

So far, I have four comments:

1. What experience and expertise do seven or eight old men (ARRL EC) in
Newington have, to qualify to make policy for the conduct of Amateur HF
operations?

Whoops! Clay, I like the idea of a non-name calling thread, so we
should probably drop the "old men" pejorative.




Let's see their operating logs or other evidence for the past
year where they have made 5 contacts per week avg. in the
CW/Data/AutoData/Voice intersection areas in the subject bands they are
including in their proposal. OK, let's make it easy, just show logs for
just SWLing those areas for 2 1/2 hrs per week. If they cannot produce,
then they should be excused from making policy on such far-reaching
implications.

2. While it may appear to be "overregulating" as someone pointed out, I take
the opposite view. K1ZZ says "Oh, bandwidth is too hard to define, let
alone measure, so lets just "say" we are going to restrict AutoDATA to 3.5
KHz and Semi-Auto DATA to 500 Hz, but we won't require measurement for
verification.

It would seem to me that we might find a space for these modes via the
bandplan, same as we have in the past.

I think that making unenforceable rules such as "saying things" is the
breeding ground of disrespect.


First of all, does anyone have a copy of the current rules and regs for
AutoDATA and Semi-AutoDATA operation on HF? I've been away a while, so
someone please point me to that in the Part 97. Let's get that established
first. For instance do those stations have to identify in CW or Voice(AM or
SSB) at any time? So how about some clear rules and regs for conduct of the
Auto and Semi-Auto stations.

dunno...

Second, if they are going to refarm on "bandwidth", should not
"bandwidth" be redefined to a quantifiable measure? K1ZZ claims that
bandwidth is not necessary to measure, that it will be self-regulating.
Yeah, sure wink, wink!

Agreed. How on earth would someone be in violation of something not
defined? No definition, no rules breaking.


This works on voice HF where you can tune over to
the offending frequency and say "QLF", "QSY or QRT". Have you ever tried to
tell an unidentifiable robot station that it is running too broad a signal?
It is almost as difficult as telling K1MAN to QSY.;-)

Yup!


Everyone knows that
there is always great pressure to open up the bandwidth and increase
throughput on DATA. Soon you will soon find the HF AutoDATA's going to 16
KHz and Semi-AutoDATA's going to 3.5 KHz. If you ever do catch up with the
offender their retort would be: "But, hey, bandwidth is ill-defined, and I
don't have to measure it, so sue me!"

3. Am I prejudiced? Yes! My experience, living with AutoDATA's operating
in the 7.100 to 7.105 MHz for a few years was this: While I am trying to
work new novices and give them a new contact, in the only part of the novice
band not savaged by Foreign Broadcast, while gearing down to 5-10WPM, these
Auto Cowboys would fire up on our QSO. If you called CQ on "their"
frequency, they would turn you in to the FCC.

Same on PSK31. I've seen those puppies fire up right over top of us,
and wreck the whole segment. Since the nature of PSK31 is such that
QSY'ing isn't as convenient as for SSB or CW, we just shut down or
change bands.

Their idea of "sharing" in
the HF band was about the same as K1MAN's or W1AW's idea of sharing their
bulletin frequencies.

Now that you mention it, W1AW's Morse practice sessions on 80 meters
wreck psk31 too. Most of the time, Morse and PSK coexist pretty well,
but their signa has some nasty looking spurs on it that cover the whole
segment.


So, in effect, is the ARRL EC campaigning to give the
Auto Cowboys their exclusive non-sharable subbands throughout the HF
spectrum? Take a look at K1ZZ's chart and add up the total AutoDATA
bandwidth across the HF spectrum. Now will we have the Semi-AutoDATA
operations spreading out from there? Hmmmmm!

4. Lest I be labeled a Luddite, I think that a robust Amateur HF Data
Network across the nation, managed by dedicated Hams, could be the
center-piece for revitalizing or defending our reason to exist as a service
in the public interest. However, such operations as SemiAuto and AutoDATA
need to be regulated in proportion to their inherent liability to wreak
havoc and do damage to current operations if unchecked.

Well put.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:

CCW N4AOX wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

"Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and
comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and
technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has
reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for
a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the
panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft ARRL
petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum by
emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC
recommendations at this point . . . "

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1

- - - - - - -

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.

w3rv



I would like to see a comprehensive discussion of this proposed rule making
without it degenerating into name calling. This could revitalize a
newsgroup that is overdue for getting back on subject, that is, policy.

So far, I have four comments:

1. What experience and expertise do seven or eight old men (ARRL EC) in
Newington have, to qualify to make policy for the conduct of Amateur HF
operations?

Whoops! Clay, I like the idea of a non-name calling thread, so we
should probably drop the "old men" pejorative.

You beat me to it, Mike.

Let's see their operating logs or other evidence for the past
year where they have made 5 contacts per week avg. in the
CW/Data/AutoData/Voice intersection areas in the subject bands they are
including in their proposal. OK, let's make it easy, just show logs for
just SWLing those areas for 2 1/2 hrs per week. If they cannot produce,
then they should be excused from making policy on such far-reaching
implications.

I happen to know a number of them personally and have had radio contact
with a number of others in numerous on-air activities. Some could be
less active.

2. While it may appear to be "overregulating" as someone pointed out, I take
the opposite view. K1ZZ says "Oh, bandwidth is too hard to define, let
alone measure, so lets just "say" we are going to restrict AutoDATA to 3.5
KHz and Semi-Auto DATA to 500 Hz, but we won't require measurement for
verification.

It would seem to me that we might find a space for these modes via the
bandplan, same as we have in the past.

I tend to agree.

I think that making unenforceable rules such as "saying things" is the
breeding ground of disrespect.

First of all, does anyone have a copy of the current rules and regs for
AutoDATA and Semi-AutoDATA operation on HF? I've been away a while, so
someone please point me to that in the Part 97. Let's get that established
first. For instance do those stations have to identify in CW or Voice(AM or
SSB) at any time? So how about some clear rules and regs for conduct of the
Auto and Semi-Auto stations.

dunno...

Part 97 is available for free online.

Second, if they are going to refarm on "bandwidth", should not
"bandwidth" be redefined to a quantifiable measure? K1ZZ claims that
bandwidth is not necessary to measure, that it will be self-regulating.
Yeah, sure wink, wink!

Agreed. How on earth would someone be in violation of something not
defined? No definition, no rules breaking.

Not agreed. A digital signal with a nominal bandwidth of 3200 Hz isn't
going to bother anyone noticeably more than a digital signal of 3000 Hz.

This works on voice HF where you can tune over to
the offending frequency and say "QLF", "QSY or QRT". Have you ever tried to
tell an unidentifiable robot station that it is running too broad a signal?
It is almost as difficult as telling K1MAN to QSY.;-)

Yup!

We don't operate on assigned discrete channels. A robot station which
fires up directly on top of you will QRM you the same as one which is
200 Hz too wide.

Everyone knows that
there is always great pressure to open up the bandwidth and increase
throughput on DATA. Soon you will soon find the HF AutoDATA's going to 16
KHz and Semi-AutoDATA's going to 3.5 KHz. If you ever do catch up with the
offender their retort would be: "But, hey, bandwidth is ill-defined, and I
don't have to measure it, so sue me!"

3. Am I prejudiced? Yes! My experience, living with AutoDATA's operating
in the 7.100 to 7.105 MHz for a few years was this: While I am trying to
work new novices and give them a new contact, in the only part of the novice
band not savaged by Foreign Broadcast, while gearing down to 5-10WPM, these
Auto Cowboys would fire up on our QSO. If you called CQ on "their"
frequency, they would turn you in to the FCC.

The plan moves automatically controlled stations to a specific area. If
I want to ragchew, I'll stay outside those segments.

Same on PSK31. I've seen those puppies fire up right over top of us,
and wreck the whole segment. Since the nature of PSK31 is such that
QSY'ing isn't as convenient as for SSB or CW, we just shut down or
change bands.

Their idea of "sharing" in
the HF band was about the same as K1MAN's or W1AW's idea of sharing their
bulletin frequencies.

Now that you mention it, W1AW's Morse practice sessions on 80 meters
wreck psk31 too. Most of the time, Morse and PSK coexist pretty well,
but their signa has some nasty looking spurs on it that cover the whole
segment.

Do you know that for sure, Mike or is the W1AW sig so strong in your
area that it overloads your transceiver? Have you actually switched in
an attenuator after making certain that your noise blanker is switched
off?

So, in effect, is the ARRL EC campaigning to give the
Auto Cowboys their exclusive non-sharable subbands throughout the HF
spectrum? Take a look at K1ZZ's chart and add up the total AutoDATA
bandwidth across the HF spectrum. Now will we have the Semi-AutoDATA
operations spreading out from there? Hmmmmm!

You'll note that none of this is currently etched in stone. If you have
questions or comments, now is the time to voice them to the League. If
you don't, you'll have an opportunity to make your views known to the
FCC.

4. Lest I be labeled a Luddite, I think that a robust Amateur HF Data
Network across the nation, managed by dedicated Hams, could be the
center-piece for revitalizing or defending our reason to exist as a service
in the public interest. However, such operations as SemiAuto and AutoDATA
need to be regulated in proportion to their inherent liability to wreak
havoc and do damage to current operations if unchecked.

Well put.

Agreed.

Dave K8MN

subject, that is, policy.

So far, I have four comments:CCW N4AOX wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
"Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and
comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and
technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has
reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors
for
a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the
panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft
ARRL
petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum
by
emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only
EC
recommendations at this point . . . "

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1

- - - - - - -

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.

w3rv


I would like to see a comprehensive discussion of this proposed rule
making
without it degenerating into name calling. This could revitalize a
newsgroup that is overdue for getting back on

1. What experience and expertise do seven or eight old men (ARRL EC)

.. . . this isn't degenerative . . ? . . never mind . . .

in
Newington have, to qualify to make policy for the conduct of Amateur
HF
operations? Let's see their operating logs or other evidence for
the past
year where they have made 5 contacts per week avg. in the
CW/Data/AutoData/Voice intersection areas in the subject bands they
are
including in their proposal. OK, let's make it easy, just show
logs for
just SWLing those areas for 2 1/2 hrs per week. If they cannot
produce,
then they should be excused from making policy on such far-reaching
implications.

They've all been licensed and active in varying degrees for years.
Specific, personal activity levels and mode experiences completely
aside they are senior members of the League hierarchy who make policy
recommendations and decisions. What matters and all that matters is the
policy proposals they come up with and whether or not thee, me and the
rest of the ~670k of us support their propsals. Or not.

2. While it may appear to be "overregulating" as someone pointed out,
I take
the opposite view. K1ZZ says "Oh, bandwidth is too hard to define,
let
alone measure, so lets just "say" we are going to restrict AutoDATA
to 3.5
KHz and Semi-Auto DATA to 500 Hz, but we won't require measurement
for
verification.

That's not what he said but the net result is the same and it's
unacceptable. If the name of the game is mode separation by bandwidth
then the bandwidths obviously have to be specified in detail and
enforced. These "gentlemens agreement" and "self-regulation" non-rules
worked pretty well in days of yore but in today's world they're shaky
at best and hopeless anachronisms at worst.

First of all, does anyone have a copy of the current rules and regs
for
AutoDATA and Semi-AutoDATA operation on HF? I've been away a while,
so
someone please point me to that in the Part 97. Let's get that
established
first.

I don't know if it's carved in stone in Part 97 or if the
"listen-before-transmitting" rule falls into the nebulous collection of
"good amateur operating practices" but it's out there and the unmanned
mailbox-type stations are all in violation of it today. The proposal
recommends herding these modes into specific small slices of the bands
which is one piece of it I agree with.

For instance do those stations have to identify in CW or Voice(AM or
SSB) at any time?

They identify with whatever mode they're using. As long as the FCC
monitoring facilities can decipher it.

So how about some clear rules and regs for conduct of the
Auto and Semi-Auto stations.

Like what?

Second, if they are going to refarm on "bandwidth", should not
"bandwidth" be redefined to a quantifiable measure? K1ZZ claims
that
bandwidth is not necessary to measure, that it will be
self-regulating.
Yeah, sure wink, wink!
This works on voice HF where you can tune over to
the offending frequency and say "QLF", "QSY or QRT". Have you ever
tried to
tell an unidentifiable robot station that it is running too broad a
signal?
It is almost as difficult as telling K1MAN to QSY.;-) Everyone knows
that
there is always great pressure to open up the bandwidth and increase
throughput on DATA. Soon you will soon find the HF AutoDATA's going
to 16
KHz and Semi-AutoDATA's going to 3.5 KHz. If you ever do catch up
with the
offender their retort would be: "But, hey, bandwidth is ill-defined,
and I
don't have to measure it, so sue me!"

Been covered.

3. Am I prejudiced? Yes! My experience, living with AutoDATA's
operating
in the 7.100 to 7.105 MHz for a few years was this: While I am trying
to
work new novices and give them a new contact, in the only part of the
novice
band not savaged by Foreign Broadcast, while gearing down to 5-10WPM,
these
Auto Cowboys would fire up on our QSO. If you called CQ on "their"
frequency, they would turn you in to the FCC.

Which would do nothing about it. CW would still be allowed from the low
edges to high edges of the bands just like it is now.

Their idea of "sharing" in
the HF band was about the same as K1MAN's or W1AW's idea of sharing
their
bulletin frequencies. So, in effect, is the ARRL EC campaigning to
give the
Auto Cowboys their exclusive non-sharable subbands throughout the HF
spectrum?

No, that's not what's being proposed at all. See the proposal.

Take a look at K1ZZ's chart and add up the total AutoDATA
bandwidth across the HF spectrum. Now will we have the
Semi-AutoDATA
operations spreading out from there? Hmmmmm!

There's a whole lot more to this bag of worms than just the
auto-mailboxes.

4. Lest I be labeled a Luddite, I think that a robust Amateur HF
Data
Network across the nation, managed by dedicated Hams, could be the
center-piece for revitalizing or defending our reason to exist as a
service
in the public interest.

That would be nice but unless something very new pops up I don't think
it's a realistic expectation. The history of the rise & fall of the NTS
and the rise of the Internet and it's effects on ham radio is the
reality today.

My own beefs against this proposal are two-fold: Very seldom in the
history of regulation has a thicker rulebook generated an improvement
in the long run. The IRS code is a shining example. Secondly it is my
opinion that modes should to be allowed to duke it out on an equal
basis to sort out which survive and which can't stand the heat and
disappear. With some common-sense limitations like we have today like
the lower edges of the phone bands.

If you roll back to the 1950s a whole plethora of HF phone modes showed
up on the bands and competed with the then-standard AM. We had NBFM,
double-sideband suppressed carrier, single-sideband suppressed carrier
and variants on those. It was a helluva competitive joust spread over
about ten years.

In the end we basically got what we have today: SSB, a few AM stations,
and later some SSTV, etc. The general approach to allowing unfettered
competition worked back then and I don't see what has changed enough to
essentially toss the whole works and start over just because some users
of HF digital modes have shown up on the bands in the past few years.

Seems to me that this proposal is another result of the League being a
whole lot more excited about HF digital modes and their impacts on the
bands than the rest of us are.


--Clay
N4AOX

w3rv

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.

It would also allow the development and use of modes that are now not
allowed, or relegated to the 'phone bands.

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.

The whole robot/Winlink thing is a related but distinct issue.

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.

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)

Why not?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Good plan Jim.

Too good. It will never get passed the ARRL executive committee. Why?
Because it makes sense.

Dan/W4NTI

wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

It would also allow the development and use of modes that are now not
allowed, or relegated to the 'phone bands.

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.

The whole robot/Winlink thing is a related but distinct issue.

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.

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)

Why not?

73 de Jim, N2EY

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