But "content" has nothing to do with bandwidth. The original complaint was that "bandwidth" restrictions in current regulations are keeping us from operating new, and supposedely better modes.
The ARRL could have addressed content restriction without addressing bandwidth regulation! Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Stephensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The basic problem is that the current regulations restrict the content of amateur transmissions. It shouldn't matter whether you are transmitting text, voice or images. On HF, you can transmit voice or images in a 3 kHz or 6 kHz bandwidth but to transfer a file during that QSO you have to change frequencies because it is considered data. On the 70 cm band, real-time compressed video could be sent in a 300 kHz bandwidth but not data. > > 73, > > John > KD6OZH > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Howard Brown > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 16:33 UTC > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ...... > > > > John, please tell us what modes need more than 100 kHz > bandwidth, or even which mode needs the 100 kHz. > > Personally, I have not experienced these but would like > to hear about them. > > Howard K5HB > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: John B. Stephensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 10:30:10 AM > Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ...... > > > > One problem is that very wide modems are allowed only outside the phone/image segments, which is the opposite of what is reasoable for users. Another example is that data modes are only allowed a 100 kHz bandwidth on 70 cm which is 30 MHz wide. > > 73, > > John > KD6OZH > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: jgorman01 > To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:18 UTC > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL wake up ...... > > > I must be one of the stupid folks that have a "misconception" about > what the withdrawn petition was to accomplish. > > Could you enlighten us on just exactly what "modes" are being blocked > by the current regulations. What bands do these modes operate on? > What is the purpose of the blocked modes? > > The ARRL stated that very wide multi-tone modems ARE allowed under > current regulations and I guess I'm just not educated enough to know > that implementation of some better modes are being blocked. Heck, > pactor 3 only operates at 100 baud. Does SCS have an even better > modem that works at something over 300 baud? > > Jim > WA0LYK > > --- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, "Bill Vodall WA7NWP" <wa7nwp@> > wrote: > > > > > NO ONE wants to hamper experimenting but at the same > > > time no one should want to crush other older modes ... > > > > No one wants to crush the older modes -- but they can't block moving > > to new modes and that's what's happening now. > > > > > > Bill, WA7NWP > > >
