Do you really feel that there is a consensus on this group to support division by bandwith? Based upon many comments, there also appears to be a significant number who are uncomfortable with that approach and who favor keeping mode types separated.
And I would be surprised if the majority was in favor of having greater bandwidths than what is now what a typical SSB transceiver uses. The whole idea being that these are shared frequencies and there are a lot of us and some very limited places to fit our signal in at times. If the ARRL has really reversed its earlier change from what I had thought was 3.5 kHz and now is recommending 3.0 kHz, then doesn't that suggest there must be some kind of board policy change from several years ago? 73, Rick, KV9U Walt DuBose wrote: > Bonnie, > > I do think the time is right; but, I think it has been for several years. > > I truly believe that to just say we need more bandwidth without showing why > we > have not case or change to change the League's position. > > Show then in as simple terms as possible why more bandwidth is needed or why > 3 > kHz bandwidth will not support their interest and that of amateur radio. > > If this group could come up with a number of reasons, and each U.S. amateur > wrote their individual Division Director supporting "our" position(s), or > even > their own valid reasons needing/wanting more bandwidth, they I think the > League > would move on the action. > > Truthfully from what I hear from various ARRL Board members is that they get > few > messages from their division amateur radio operators on most of the ideas > that > the League proposes. > > Thanks for you concern and what you do for Amateur Radio. > > 73, > > Walt/K5YFW > > expeditionradio wrote: > >> --- In [email protected], "John B. Stephensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> The original ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposal put wide data in >>> >> the same band segments with image and voice transission. Their members >> seem to have convinced them otherwise. Perhaps they need to hear from >> supporters of regulation by bandwidth. >> >> >>> 73, >>> >>> John >>> KD6OZH >>> >> Hi John, >> >> Several years ago, I attempted to correspond with all the ARRL staff >> and directors about bandwidth-based spectrum management. >> >> I got nearly zero response. Perhaps the time is ripe now. >> >> Bonnie KQ6XA >> >> > > > > Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster > telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Our other groups: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97 >
