--- In [email protected], Alan Barrow <ml9...@...> wrote: > > Here we disagree somewhat. I would mostly agree for areas like 40m, > especially if multiple channels were used like ROS did. But I don't > agree that a new & otherwise legal mode that is SSB width should be > excluded just because the bands can be crowded.
I think that before any new mode should be made available for general use, the developer(s) should have some acceptable plan for where it will be used. In Jose's defense, no such system exists for finding or allocating frequencies. He asked users, hams, to suggest frequencies that could be used, on the assumption that they were the experts on this. Unfortunately the people he asked were ignorant of any band usage other than the modes they personally used, so the frequencies they suggested were ones used by beacons, packet networks etc. > If the mode is otherwise legal, it's up to the operator to find a hole > to operate. That's not a matter for legislation. :-) Unfortunately, we are constrained (you in the USA I believe are legally constrained) by band planning drawn up in the days when there were no digital modes wider than RTTY. If people were free to use ROS in the part of the band where other wide band modes are used then the ill feeling that was caused by the mode would probably have been avoided. Perhaps when petitioning the FCC to allow the use of SS modes on the HF bands you could also persuade them to allow you greater freedom over where to actually operate? Julian, G4ILO
