Had the ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" proposal been accepted, the range
of frequencies available to automatic stations without busy frequency
detectors would have significantly increased, which was why so many amateurs
opposed it, which was why the ARRL abandoned it.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of John B. Stephensen
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 2:43 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
The FCC could make part 97 more understandable if they adopted regulation
by
bandwidth but that effort died. EZPal on 14.233-14.237 MHz is OK as there
are very few restrictions on image transmission.
73,
John
KD6OZH
----- Original Message -----
From: John
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 02:21 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Why would anyone
So sorry John .....
of course you are right .....
we were supposed to have read and understood the contents of part 97 .....
I guess I must have forgotten the part that demanded we also memorize it
verbatim with all it's technical terms and specs. I must be the one to admit
it, I am the one that forgot some pieces of it ....
could you remind me again about where that rule was located? .... HiHi
In all seriousness, I was simply trying to illustrate a point that seemed to
be misleading in the discussion. As I read the discussion, and indeed I
could have missed some posts, but it appeared some were alluding that the
maximum baud rate was 300 PERIOD, which as you have so expertly pointed out
is quite untrue .....
Thank you for the clarification, however these limits still seem to fly in
the face of such things as EZPal and a few others, especially when operating
on customary HF frequencies around 20 meters (14.233 - 14.237 khz) ....
Thanks again
