Its ambiguous, Andy. They could mean
"we'll change 97.221(b) from
(b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a
RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on
the 28.120-28.189 MHz, 24.925-24.930 MHz, 21.090-21.100 MHz, 18.105-
18.110 MHz, 14.0950-14.0995 MHz, 14.1005-14.112 MHz, 10.140-10.150
MHz, 7.100-7.105 MHz, or 3.620-3.635 MHz segments.
to
(b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a
RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on
the 28.120-28.189 MHz, 24.925-24.930 MHz, 21.090-21.100 MHz, 18.105-
18.110 MHz, 14.0950-14.0995 MHz, 14.1005-14.112 MHz, 10.140-10.150
MHz, 7.100-7.105 MHz, or 3.585-3.600 MHz segments."
Or, they could mean "we suggest that automatically controlled
stations use 3.585-3.600, as permitted by 97.221(c)", which requires
that
(1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under
local or remote control; and
(2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station
occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz.
Someone forgot to take his or her clarity pills...
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], "Andrew O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Duane, I don't quite "get" their meaning..
>
> "The ARRL argued
> that the 75 m band should not have been expanded
> below 3635 kHz, in order to protect automatically
> controlled digital stations operating in the
> 3620-3635 kHz portion of the 80 m band. The FCC
> concluded that these stations can be protected by
> providing alternate spectrum in the 3585-3600 kHz frequency segment"
>
> Is the FCC saying that the auto-controlled digital operators do not
> need protecting?
>
> Andy.
>
> --- In [email protected], "dshults" <n7qdn@> wrote:
> >
> > Completely removing the CW requirement may not have been the best
> > move, but this better-late-than-never correction was asked for
> > and expected...
> > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
> >
> > ... Duane N7QDN
> >
>
