K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
They allegedly did a band-occupancy study - which consisted of scanning
the
HF bands over a 12 hour period of one day. As if that would be a
representative sample.
On a day with low sunspot activity in the middle of the week, no
doubt.
On a Saturday. Read the proposal for the exact date.
The ARRL proposal has some good points, but they manage to ignore a lot
of valid concerns like robot operation, and come up with a proposal that
few will support as it stands.
I dunno what it means that FCC is only allowing 30 days for comments,
but I hope it's an indication they think both of these are bad ideas...
I doubt that 30 day window will give them a whole lot of time to
make that "big" of a consideration, Jim.
So we should get our comments in.
My concern is that there are already too few folks out there who
really understand what their bandwidth requirements are now.
Doesn't matter. What matters is what the FCC thinks they are, and how
best to regulate.
I am also afraid that they will OVER-simplify the regs to
something like "x" khz or narrower signals below "this" landmark, "y"
khz or wider signals above". The list of potential nightmares is
endless.
The CTT proposal simply removes all landmarks. The ARRL proposal moves
them and changes some definitions.
Remember that most of the rest of the world doesn't have subbands by
mode.
73 de Jim, N2EY