Guys, Here is my guess...the ARRL would NOW love to do reg by BW, but the FCC isn't buying it. They don't want to get into that level of detail in any enforcement actions.
The agency may go along with it for VHF and UHF because the impact is more local, but on HF their ability to enforce (or NOT) reg by BW would be on international display every day...and they have what, two or three guys doing the work on a daily basis? Think about it! But, if I am wrong, please remember that I like my crow medium rare! 73, John K8OCL ----Original Message Follows---- From: "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Tearing Down USA's Data Wall (300 symbols/second) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 01:46:50 -0000 --- 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
