What you're proposing is regulation by bandwidth. Once you're in a QSO with 
another station it shouldn't matter what you send. The only issue is where the 
different band segments for the different bandwidths are located.

73,

John
KD6OZH

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: n6vl 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 07:08 UTC
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second)


  I have a different twist on this. Lets go ahead and allow data modes 
  up to 3 kHz bandwidth. But if this is truly supposed to be regulation 
  by bandwidth, then move these broader modes up into the phone 
  portions. Narrower modes like RTTY, PSK31, CW, and others need space 
  where they won't be overwhelmed by wider bandwidth sigals. I think 
  there should be areas of each band with safe havens for the narrow 
  modes. The current CW data mode sub-bands would be a good line of 
  demarcation.

  I am generally against the proposal because it is not truly 
  regulation by bandwidth or not fully so. For example, the PSK31 
  region on 20 meters is 14.070 to 14.073 or 3 kHz wide. Why should one 
  signal get to clobber a dozen signals?

  Also much of the QRM on the lower end of the bands is from stations 
  who don't have ability to hear other modes. On my 756 Pro 2, I cannot 
  hear a PSK31 or CW station if I am on RTTY and have the twin filters 
  kicked it. At least PSK31, MFSK16, and Olivia stations have waterfall 
  displays available and can see other activity near the intended 
  transmit frequency. A common query on CW is QRL? It is the equivalent 
  of "is this frequency in use?", on ssb. How are users these wider 
  modes digital modes going to know if they are stepping on someone?

  What about HFpack? I have worked the narrow digital modes with HFpack 
  members. I also know a local group of HFpackers who meet on 80 meter 
  CW. The wider modes tend to reduce efficiency and squeeze out the 
  little guy. 1 kHz Olivia may be the exception. But 3 kHz is 3 times 
  as wide.

  It is strange that the ARRL proposed a 200 Hz bandwidth limit at the 
  low end of 10 meters, but 3 kHz on the other HF bands. 10 meters is 
  the HF band with the most space to begin with. This is really odd.

  It is not a perfect solution, but if 3 kHz data is necessary, lets 
  truly regulate by bandwidth and put it in the phone bands.

  73,

  Steve N6VL



   

Reply via email to