Brian, I talked to ARRL NE Division Director Tom Frenaye, K1KI about the July ARRL Board of Directors Minute 64.
Tom explained that with the advance of technology there are wide band digital signals that can legally operate in today's CW subbands. These CW subbands, that were originally intended for narrow bandwidth by defining them to be CW and data, are no longer exclusively narrow band because of wide band digital modes. To keep the wideband digital signals from utilizing the whole band a better definition of wide vs narrow is required. Tom used a simplified 20 meter subband example to illustrate, "Maybe 14.150 mHz should be the subband divider and any emission less than a specific bandwidth would be allowed below and emissions wider than that allowed above. " The discussion leading up to ARRL BOD Minute 64 was exclusively focused on protecting the narrow modes, CW, PK31, TTY from the wideband digital and voice modes. No limiting of wideband mode bandwidth was discussed. At this point there is no straw proposal or work group, just the decision to eventually develop a proposal, leading to a petition to the FCC. Since there are elements in the amateur service, and maybe in the ARRL and FCC as well that would like to limit AM we can expect the ARRL and FCC to receive their recommendations during this petition development process. I think we need to stay vigilant, monitor and influence development of the subband petition deficient, and then mount a tremendous AM community comment effort during some future NPRM process. Dale KW1I -----Original Message----- From: Brian Carling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] A rumor about limiting bandwidth I'd really like to know what the hell their reasoning is behind proposing this! Whether there is an infringement on AM activity or not, it just seems like they are after the same old saw of fixing things that aren't broken. What EVER is the matter with these people? AM I just missing something here? Or is there some secret sensible purpose for this idea? On 14 Aug 2002 at 16:01, WILHITE, JIM wrote: > Recently on another reflector I read a rumor about the ARRL proposing > a maximum bandwidth limitation on subbands of 3.5 Kcy. I sent the > following message to the Executive Director of the ARRL and here is > his answer. I post for you consumption. Is it time to get involved > with the directors? > > 73 Jim > de W5JPW > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: WILHITE, JIM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 1:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Rumors > > > Hi Dave: > > Another rumor has surfaced about the ARRL being supportive of limiting > the bandwidth of signals. The rumor is 3.5 kHz for wideband signals. > If this is true, I want you to know how adamantly I am opposed to the > proposal. In a time when frequency allocations are increasing and > band usage is much more congenial, I find it hard to believe that > anyone would support this kind of proposal. > > The rumor is that the ARRL is prepared to sumit a notice of proposed > rulemaking concerning this issue. Can you please tell me if that is > the case and is the notice being prepared? > > Tnx and 73 > > Jim Wilhite > member # 0008432524 > de W5JPW > > > > > > Well, Jim, all I can tell you is that the ARRL opposed a 3.5-kHz > bandwidth limitation the last time it was proposed, by the FCC in 1976 > (Docket 20777), and I don't know anything that's changed in the > meantime to alter that position. > > Probably what set this off was Minute 64 of the July 2002 Board > Meeting which reads in its entirety: 64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, > seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical > opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to > regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode. > > The Board has given us no instruction as to what the petition should > propose with regard to bandwidth. Absent instructions to the contrary, > what we draft (nothing's been done on this as of now) will not propose > new restrictions. But it's certainly true that in going from a > regulatory regime based on mode of emission to one based on bandwidth > there are bound to be consequences, intended and otherwise, that will > have to be considered very carefully. > > 73, > David Sumner, K1ZZ > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML > or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. > Please post in Plain-Text only.--- > _______________________________________________ > AMRadio mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio _______________________________________________ AMRadio mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
