Bill,

The FCC is very clear about ALE being completely legal to use on voice 
frequencies for signaling purposes. You would not even have any 
particular restriction on baud rate either.

This whole "eat crow" nonsense is coming from one person. The fact is 
that the FCC's decisions have been shockingly amateurish with many 
errors in their own R&O and final rule. They are saying things that are 
mutually exclusive and seem to not even be aware of it. Such as not 
removing the automatic operation area on 80 meters from the rules, even 
though this type of operation will not be possible in the area that has 
been set aside for years.

What is the most annoying is their statement that no one loses any 
privileges, when in fact, it is a huge loss to many. The main 
beneficieries are the phone operators.

In terms of the wide modes, Pactor 3, or even any of them, it will be 
extremely inappropriate to be using modes over 500 Hz in the ultra 
narrow CW/DATA/RTTY area of 80 meters. In fact, it is my recommendation 
that a bandplan be developed to reflect that view, except during low 
usage of the band, such as during the daytime, and perhaps during 
extremely noisy conditions such as summer evenings. This subband is 
really only twice the size of 30 meters now and during good propagation 
and a lot of activity, DXing, contests, NTS nets, etc., good operators 
will not use wide modes.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Bill McLaughlin wrote:

>Guess time will tell Bonnie, I do not hate Pactor (hard to hate a 
>mode) just hate when it transmits on an existing QSO....think this 
>will sort out eventually for best or worse...have heard many (no 
>names mentioned) that various modes would be illegal and a death bell 
>would toll for many. Even heard people saying 80 meter ALE would move 
>to 3.587 in response to the Omnibus ruling. Time will tell as to who 
>over/under reacted and how we as a community will adjust. Not sure 
>claiming others will "eat crow" is in the best spirit though....as 
>usual I may well be wrong.
>
>73, Bill  N9DSJ
>
>  
>

Reply via email to