Rick, I have been working on such a plan. This plan keeps things organized the way they are now, but adds the multimedia playground 25kHz below the top of each band. Let me go through a summary, then you can look at the chart, and comment.
160 meters, no change from what it is now. 80 meters 3.5 to 3.6 MHz is all max 500Hz necessary bandwidth 40 meters 7.000-7.100 MHz 500 Hz, 7.100-7.125 MHz 2.8 kHz, 7.125 to 7.150 multimedia playground. The reason for this is because the automatic subband today begins at 7.100 and goes to 7.105, This would remain automatic control area, but the remainder from 7.105 to 7.125 would be for wider digital modes. 30 meters 10.10-10.14 MHz 500 Hz, 10.140-10.150 MHz 2.8 kHz. No multimedia playground on the WARC bands. 20 meters 14.00-14.100 MHz 500 Hz, 14.100-14.125 MHz 2.8 kHz, 14.125-14.15 MHz multimedia playground. The automatic subband at 14.0950-14.0995 MHz would be eliminated and the remaining one would be remain at 14.1005-14.112 MHz which closely matches Region 1. 17 meters 18.068-18.105 MHz 500 Hz 18.105-18.110 MHz 2.8 kHz, No multimedia playground on the WARC bands. 15 meters 21.0-21.090 MHz 500 Hz, while this may seem unfair, this is where the auto subband begins now. 21.090-21.100 2.8 kHz, the auto subband is 21.090-21.100 today, 21.100-21.2 multi media playground, a large chunk, maybe too big? 12 meters 24.89-24.925 MHz 500 Hz, 24.925-24.93 2.8 kHz. No multimedia playground on the WARC bands. 10 meters 28.0-28.120 MHz 500 Hz, 28.120-28.275 2.8 kHz. 28.275-28.3 multimedia playground. CW is still authorized everywhere. I don't want this thing to be too complicated, and really feel that only 2 bandwidths should be enumerated: a narrowband and wideband. I think this one is the most fair, as it mirrors what we have today, and provides some real protection to narrow band modes by enumerating a 500 Hz maximum bandwidth, which is not there today. but is implied. The chart is at http://home.comcast.net/~mdmiller7/arrl_alt/fcc_pet_digital_6_apendix_a.htm . I have a narrative written, but it needs to be modified to fit this chart. 73, Mark N5RFX >Perhaps we should be carving out a frequency for playing with this >digital stuff in the HF bands?
