I think the hidden motivator for the large phone spectrum allocation on 75m might possibly be that the FCC expects that when they open up HF to no-code Generals, there will be a big push for SSB space, and they need 75m for this.
Personally, I suspect that this isn't going to pan out that way. In fact, if we are lucky, the new hams with the technical expertise and willingness to invent (but lack of interest in CW) will push towards digital operations, and will offer contributions there. If there is a big push for SSB then it will pan out the way the FCC has proposed, but if not, and the push for more digital space is there, something will have to happen with the bandplan and the emission regulations. Leigh/WA5ZNU P.S. Please no code/no-code arguments--direct those to the FCC. I just spent the morning teaching getting 3rd graders the physics of sound, and two already knew morse code. On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:23 am, John Bradley wrote: > And why would hams from outside the US want to do this? We just got rid > a whole bunch of rules and regulations > > regarding band plans,emission types etc etc, and so far things are > going well > > This would be a huge step backwards for the ITU and most other > countries who adhere to a voluntary band plan, which is also > > based on historical useage. This historical use will likely not change > on 80M with the new US rules. RTTY and other modes > > will still be found above 3600, maybe even more since the band will be > crowded between 3500 and 3600. The big difference for us will with the > Canadian > > SSB nets which normally occupy 3725 to 3750, which will now be open to > US ham SSB check-ins. > > My recommendation would be to fire all the lawyers on both the FCC and > ARRL sides, and let some common sense prevail. > > John > > VE5MU > >> Subject: [digitalradio] Band Plans >> >> The only way that this issue is going to be solved is for the ITU to >> step in and set up band plans for each mode/bandwidth on each band >> more especially on the HF bands. I am not sure how often the ITU >> meets, every 3-5 years. Every country should have a member and provide >> input from their amateur operators. I believe most all countries have >> an origination very much like the ARRL here in the US. They could >> provide that member with the request/recommendation and come up with a >> plan that we all could live with > >
