Rick ....
No legacy mode user has a problem with using a spark
gap if the bandwidth is within the current rules. MANY
like myself have a interest in some forms of DIGITAL
and I myself run some PSK-31.
This is not a digital/legacy mode fight but to prevent
a elite bunch which is under 1,000 HAMS from
DESTROYING large parts of VHF/HF for there OWN gain.
They even proposed allowing 90% of both 6 and 2 meters
to be used for this wide band disaster ... O but all
the rest of us could still have 300 kHz per band
..... well 200 since the first 100 is CW only ...
I work on ICOM RADIOS WE HAVE 2,000 of them at work.
I would like to see D-Star grow and become part of 2
and 440 repeater bands THIS WILL TAKE A LONG TIME
.....
TOO BAD THEY DID NOT THINK OF POOR 219 MHz which sits
there UNUSED... I know JAPAN does not have 220 but WE
DO .....
FACT is no reason to allow wide band users below 219
MHz are not using what they already have ...
As a LONG TIME user of VHF and it being my job since
the ARMY in the 1960's I have seen what the lower end
of the IQ scale can do even on SSB and that's 3 kHz
wide NO THANKS no one I know wants to see 100 kHz wide
radios in the hands of the same class of user. The
idea they this low end would not crank it up to 100
kHz wide and wreck havoc just does not follow history
if its LEGAL there will be hard core users bent on
running any other modes off .... and NO i do not
believe any talk of lissing before transmitting AIN'T
going to happen.
AGAIN THIS DOES NOT INVOLVE NARROW BAND DIGITAL !
Yep we don't need them on ANY VHF BAND and
particularly WORLD WIDE BANDS like 6 or even 10
meters.
Do we believe the ARRL ..... SHURE .... after 40
years as a member they have not changed look at the
late 60's ask those who got burned by the license
changed the league pushed through back 40 years ago
again the members were bypassed ..
D-Star sounds to me as a start but the problem is the
need to have a digital standard a PLUG and PLAY system
so those of us who want to add it can without buying
new radios ..... THEN you will see it really start to
grow .... Right now we have almost ZIP in tampabay
..... for now .....
--- Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> I agree that Bonnie has made some very unfortunate
> and some would say,
> extreme comments in the past and some of us look
> upon her claims of what
> is legal with some suspicion. But the reason that
> ARRL proposed changes
> to the regulation to restrict bandwidth was
> precisely because current
> FCC rules are very loose and most of what we do
> falls under the general
> concept of "good amateur practices."
>
> Under current rules, we base the use of sub bands on
> the mode and the
> content of the information. Lower down we have the
> text data areas (also
> typically used for CW, but would not necessarily
> have to), then it
> switches to voice/image/cw on most HF bands.
>
> ARRL did an absolutely horrible job of explaining
> their proposal to the
> rank and file radio amateurs who probably make up
> close to 99% of the
> total active operating. Many hams viewed this as a
> way to force digital
> voice and wide bandwidth (voice bandwidth) text
> digital modes (read
> Pactor 3) on the voice bands. Especially because of
> the unethical way
> that the ARRL packed the Digital Committee that
> promoted Winlink2000.
> Whether you support Winlink2000 or not, the insuring
> of a given outcome,
> and completely short circuiting the democratic
> process of fair
> representation was a sad day for ARRL and hurt them
> severely with many
> of the more thoughtful and reasonable hams. (After
> all, the inventor of
> both AMTOR and PSK31 resigned under protest from the
> committee when he
> realized what was going to happen).
>
> I am not sure if the average ham understood that we
> could already use DV
> in the voice /image portions of the bands. And once
> you allow that, how
> could you even tell by ear if the person was sending
> voice, data, or
> image if using a multipurpose waveform?
>
> If you read Dave Sumner's editorial, he pointed out
> that just because
> the FCC changes the rules and allows certain
> bandwidths in a given area
> of the band, it does not necessarily mean that the
> ARRL would support
> the concept that any mode can be used with that
> bandwidth. His point was
> that Band Plans would specify what modes and content
> are appropriate for
> specific frequencies and that DV would not
> necessarily be permitted in
> areas of analog voice. And certainly not text
> digital in analog voice areas.
>
> This is not what I personally want. My preference is
> to allow mixed
> modes in certain overlapping areas, but it appears
> that very few support
> this. Under current rules, DV can be used in any
> analog voice area,
> because it is voice. So can image/SSTV/FAX. But
> unfortunately not text
> digital. This means that we can not coordinate with
> voice as the SSTV
> hams do, when we want to experiment with a text
> digital mode, even a
> wide text digital mode.
>
> The two ways I look at it are:
>
> -Leave things alone since they may be worse off for
> digital users with
> new regulations.
>
> -Go for the changes and then lobby our Division
> Directors to get the
> ARRL to accept some mixed mode/content areas,
> especially for emergency
> use which is my main interest area.
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
> bruce mallon wrote:
> > BONNY YOU CANNOT AND YOU KNOW IT .....GET OFF IT
> OR
> > WHY WOULD THEY BE TRING TO CHANGE THE RULES ....
> >
> > YOU ARE 1%OF ALL HAMS AND IT'S YOU AND THOES LIKE
> YOU
> > THAT GIVE DIGITAL A BAD NAME .... You cannot even
> draw
> > people to the bands you have BUT you want more
> bands ?
> >
> > Note HER others running digital SHE is the reason
> the
> > wideband digital bunch is being watched ......
> >
> > THEY DON'T CARE WHO THEY HURT IT;S THEIR BANDS TO
> > DISTROY THEY WANT ALL BANDS .... Just ask them
> ....
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
