WALT ....... THINK THINK ....... 100 khz wide signals are going to KILL any band you put them on and do you think anyone will look for OTHERS before fireing up a digital radio ...... GEESE go on 75 and lissen to SSB they can't even handle THAT mode ......
--- Walt DuBose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You of course ask a question that only the readers > can answer. > > For my part it would be Ok to open up the entire > band for any bandwidth mode but > with enforcement of a non-QRM requirment. Since the > U.S. FCC does not have that > capability, any bandplan would have no real > enforcement capability. This plus > the fact that Part 97 are administrative rules and > NOT laws, swift and timely > enforcement is hampered. > > On the other hand, if amateur radio WAS covered by > public law, then any changes > might take many years to be enacted. > > Walt > > kv9u wrote: > > 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 > >>> > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
