How can ARRL profess to be in the business of suggesting bandplans that all of
us should follow, when:
1. The have officially adopted Winlink 2000 as part of the ARRL messaging
system.
2. They have twice attempted to get the FCC to pass regulations favoring the 1%
that use Winlink activities that negatively affect the rest of us who number
99%.
3. They stacked the HF Digital Committee with more representation for Winlink
than for everyone else, and then made the Winlink network designer the Chairman.
4. The bandwidth petition then heavily favored what Winlink (as essentially
the only significant operator of Email robots) wants to the detriment of
eveyone else.
5. The ARRL petition completely disregarded IARU region 1 limitiations on
automatic stations on HF, although HF signals travel worldwide.
My point is this: ARRL has an inescapable conflict of interest in their
official tie to Winlink, and, having twice used their influence with the FCC to
attempt to get regulations passed that favor their chosen special interest
group, why should anyone accept any bandplan put forth by the ARRL until they
have completely eliminated any suspicion of bias and they have divested
themselves from all reliance on Winlink?
In addition, how can the ARRL profess that segmentation by bandwidth should
be the rule, when there is no way to control which mode or modulation type is
used? (i.e. also the current segmentation by mode) It may be that 100
kHz-wide ODFM signals at 50 watts would always be close to the background noise
level (depending on how far away from the transmitter you live!), but there was
nothing I could find in RM-11306 that made it impossible to use a new
technology ,1500 watt signal, modulated at 90% over the entire 100 Khz, perhaps
carrying some type of ATV information, that would wipe out all repeaters in an
entire city in a range of 100 kHz.
All I saw in RM-11306 was 100 kHz -wide signals allowed as specified in the
table.
Did I miss something, or were there other limiting regulations elsewhere in
Part 97 that I did not find?
73, Skip
KH6TY
8a. Wideband on 6
Posted by: bruce mallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wa4gch
Date: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:53 pm ((PDT))
My dream was / is an ADV 100 kHz channel up around
53 MHz where we could have ADV QSOs over 50 -100
miles without investing a fortune in antennas.
There are very few 6M FM repeaters in my area and the
local coordinators are happy to keep a few channels
uncoordinated for our ADV use.
John - K8OCL
if later permanently approved.
NOTE: ARRL actually is NOT in the frequency coordinating business, only in
suggested band plans...or at least that is what they kept telling me (HI).
Part of John rationale for picking a busier section of the band may
have been to see if anyone even heard his signal! Although more power
was requested, I don't think he ever ran more than 50W either.
Now that may sound like a lot of power from a GP @ 40 feet, but keep
in mind that unlike WR4ANA, John's test HSMM signal (actually OFDM) would be
SPREAD OUT over 100 kHz, so its power density in a SSB or AM receiver
listening to only a few kH would be VERY VERY low.
They might not even notice he was there, as he would just blend-in with
the background noise!!!
As the WG chairman I just passed along the requested info to the ARRL
lawyer.
That wasn't my call, and his arguments for using that portion (of the band
for just 6-months of testing sounded logical enough to me and the other
guys...
John
