| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#18
April 15th 05, 01:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
| ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Policy | |||
| ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx | |||
| ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | General | |||
| ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx | |||
Threaded Mode
