Dave, You are correct. I have discussed this on the Multipsk group, however, Bonnie has attacked this view as being:
- - - - "Fiction" and "Sorry, but that is simply more fiction and misinformation. Apologies to the group. All further replies will be by private email. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA" - - - - Needless to say, there is no desire on my part for private email. This needs to be completely transparent to the group members for an issue with such a strong impact. Because there is no set aside area on 80 meters for fully automatic/wide mode semi automatic, there won't be any more fully automatic stations within the U.S. on 80 meters. This does mean the loss of the NTS/D system on that band since it is machine to machine. Same thing with machine to machine HF packet or any similiar unattended mode. It is possible that some U.S. radio amateurs may operate semi-automatic Pactor 3 as the control operator connecting to an automatically controlled machine to areas outside the U.S., or could operate as a Pactor 3 BBS/e-mail server as long as there is a human control operator, I personally would consider them to be violating the spirit of the rules. This is just my view of course. I don't know what action the FCC would take, but if they became a problem, it is not hard to imagine that there would be a strong groundswell with petitions to the FCC for relief, etc. Semi-automatic operation (machine to human operator who causes the machine to become active) will continue to be permitted any place in the Data/RTTY band, just like it has been for many years. We can expect an increase in the number of these kinds of transmissions. Some have claimed that the loss of Pactor 3 and the increase of Pactor 2 operation will cause more interference. I believe strongly that they are very mistaken. In fact, I am willing to predict that if anyone attempted Pactor 3 operation, and operated legally by not transmitting over a busy frequency, the Pactor 2 stations would have much greater throughput because: 1) The narrower modes will have a clear frequency far more often than a wide band mode, which may never have a clear frequency on a busy band. 2) Multiple 500 Hz and less bandwidths means more users can operate in a given area 3) Wide modes that are parked on a non-frequency agile spot frequency effectively make its wide bandwidth area unuseable for most other purposes. Narrower modes in a similar situation have a much smaller footprint that allows many more users over a wide bandwidth footprint. 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: >97.221 limits 80m automatic operation with more than 500 hz bandwidth >to 3.620-3.635; for verification, see > >http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=136 > >As far as I know, 97.221 was not changed in the recent FCC action. >Anyone have hard evidence to the contrary? > >If so, there will be no automatic or semi-automatic US stations >running wideband digital protocols on 80m after December 15 -- >reducing the contention for frequencies below 3600. > >I don't know how much automatic operation there is at 500 hz >bandwidth, but 3595 to 3600 seems like a good spot for it. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > >
