It's almost like we need a new band plan....Something like... HF Frequency Plan by Emission Bandwidth Not Mode <http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/>. Here is a great idea on this.... from 2004. She was a little off on her prediction about "Novice being 30% of license holders in 10 years" here in 2014 it is now 49% Back when this article was written, the pure idea of mixing CW and any digital mode was heralded as the death of CW. 10 years later, we see to saw that CW and narrow digital modes can easily coexist. A Bandwidth plan would once and for all carve out a safe playground for CW.
And I think the FCC rules on frequency hopping, would prevent a digital mode being developed that would use ALL of the 40m. As an interesting sidebar, There is a very interesting digitial chat mode ROS Weak Signal Radio Chat, developed over in europe. But because the author used the term "spread spectrum" to describe, this mode, it has been deemed illegal for use in the US, Even though the actual technical specs behind this new mode are within the FCC's rules on frequency hopping. It's this type of innovation that i strongly think the current FCC rules are holding back and preventing development here in the United States. On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Jonathan Guthrie via BVARC < [email protected]> wrote: > Why the scare quotes around compromise? I know that your emotions are > running high about this proposal, but what you propose is, in fact, a > compromise because what is important to the people who proposed this is > eliminating the limitation on data rate, which makes no sense because one > could, in fact, invent a data modulation method that takes up the entire 40 > meter band and use it legally as long as the data rate was lower than the > limit specified in the rules, and replacing the data rate limitation with a > limitation on the bandwidth of a data signal. Your proposal would have > somewhat different limits than the one proposed, but the real purpose of > the ARRL's proposal is to make the rules make more sense, not to put wide > signals into the lower parts of the HF bands. > > I might suggest that the rules change such that wide-bandwidth data be > allowed up in the phone section of the band and only low-bandwidth modes be > allowed in any part of the CW bands. > > On 06/15/2014 09:34 PM, Allen R. Brier via BVARC wrote: > >> If 'compromise' is the order of the day, and as you admit, RM-11708 is >> 'not perfect', then I propose the ARRL modify the wording of RM-11708 to >> limit DATA signals wider than 500 Hz to the top 10 or 15 kHz of the CW >> bands. Without that 'compromise', I am **100% TOTALLY AGAINST RM-11708**. >> (That's how I figured out to live with it.) >> >> I do agree that this should not have been brought up at the N1MM session, >> but that just proves how passionate some are about the subject. >> >> Allen R. Brier N5XZ / KL5DX **LIFE MEMBER OF ARRL** >> 1515 Windloch Lane >> Richmond, TX 77406-2553 >> 281-342-1882 (Home) >> 713-705-4801 (Cell) >> [email protected] >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: K5HM [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 09:41 >> To: 'Keith Dutson'; 'Terry'; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; 'CTDXCC'; 'Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ'; 'Dr. David Woolweaver' >> Cc: 'Stratton, John, N5AUS'; 'Dan White'; [email protected]; 'Alan >> Brown'; [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NARS] [CTDXCC] FW: [tdxs-list] RM-11708 >> >> All "the sky is falling" rhetoric does not serve cause of those opposed. >> Change is coming. Figure out ways to live with it. RM-11708 is not >> perfect. There needs to be compromise not fanatical opposition . . . or >> promotion. The same is true for those who favor it; compromise. >> >> I attended the N1MM session at Plano to learn, not to be proselytized. I >> was very disappointed that the particular session was hijacked to promote a >> personal agenda. That was totally out of line. While I respect the >> presenter's scientific credentials, his misuse of the forum devalues the >> weight of his argument. >> >> 73, >> Ron, K5HM >> [email protected] >> www.qrz.com/db/k5hm >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: NARS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith >> Dutson >> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:25 AM >> To: 'Terry'; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> 'CTDXCC' >> Cc: 'Stratton, John, N5AUS'; 'Dan White'; [email protected]; 'Alan >> Brown'; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [NARS] [CTDXCC] FW: [tdxs-list] RM-11708 >> >> I have a suggestion. Let's pour all of our energy into assessing the >> actual impact of RM-110708. If there is proof that the bands are being >> degraded, then it should be easy to get a petition together to repeal the >> action. >> >> 73, Keith NM5G >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: NARS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Terry >> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 6:59 AM >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'CTDXCC' >> Cc: 'Dan White'; [email protected]; 'Alan Brown'; >> [email protected]; 'Stratton, John, N5AUS' >> Subject: Re: [NARS] [CTDXCC] FW: [tdxs-list] RM-11708 >> >> Allen, >> >> Thanks for taking a stand against RM-11708. I have one of the Dayton >> Anti-RM-11708 buttons for you and will be hanging around the DFW Contest >> lunch and presentations Friday. >> >> Does anyone know when the ARRL Q&A session is on Saturday. I sure hope >> it's in a big room. >> >> Terry AB5K >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: CTDXCC [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Allen R. Brier >> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:54 AM >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; CTDXCC >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: [CTDXCC] FW: [tdxs-list] RM-11708 >> >> More on RM-11708. >> >> >> Allen R. Brier >> >> 1515 Windloch Lane >> >> Richmond, TX 77406-2553 >> >> 281-342-1882 (Home) >> >> 281-342-1590 (Home Office) >> >> 713-705-4801 (Cell) >> >> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] >> >> >> From: Dave Rogers [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 18:58 >> To: Dr. David Woolweaver >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [tdxs-list] RM-11708 >> >> >> David, >> >> >> Thanks for your reply. I completely understand that you will be fully >> occupied with HamCom. I will again present these questions at the ARRL Q&A >> session on Saturday. And I can virtually guarantee you that these will be >> the only questions on the agenda. This is the MOST divisive issue since >> incentive licensing. So if I were you I would bring my kevlar vest. >> >> >> 73, >> >> >> dave >> >> >> >> On Jun 11, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Dr. David Woolweaver <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> Dave: >> >> >> You deserve a detailed answer, but I have to postpone that answer as I am >> preparing for the Regional Centennial Convention at HamCom. There are lots >> of things to do before Friday. >> >> >> David >> >> >> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:50 PM, Dave Rogers <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> David, >> >> >> I have read everything the League has published about the proposed >> RM-11708 and so far I cannot find the reason for this proposed rule making. >> No where does the League state the problem that this change attempts to >> solve. And so far as I can tell the only effect of this proposal is >> dramatically increased QRM on the lower portion of all the HF bands. When >> recently asked about all the new QRM by one our members (K0IDT), David >> Sumner, K1ZZ gave a totally inappropriate smart aleck reply, "short term >> frequency conflicts are best dealt with by using the VFO knob". >> >> >> Since you attend BOD meetings as out West Gulf Division Director and are >> on the Executive Committee I’m sure you must have a better handle on this >> situation than everyone else. Please explain what the problem that RM-11708 >> attempts to correct. Please explain why the ARRL is making this proposal in >> contravention of IARU recommendations. Please explain why we now need to >> put automated wide bandwidth digital signals into the traditionally narrow >> bandwidth portion of the HF bands. Without a better response from the >> League than Sumner’s sorry comment I will start lobbying everyone in my ham >> radio circle to file comments with the FCC urging the Commission to deny >> RM-11708. >> >> >> We deserve better than this from the ARRL. >> >> >> 73, >> >> >> dave >> >> >> -- >> >> Dave Rogers, NR5K >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dave Rogers, NR5K >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CTDXCC mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ctdxcc >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> NARS mailing list >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nars >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >> Post: mailto:[email protected] >> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> NARS mailing list >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nars >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >> Post: mailto:[email protected] >> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BVARC mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > BVARC mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org >
_______________________________________________ BVARC mailing list [email protected] http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org
