wd8chl wrote: > Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > >> HOWEVER, there is also no real recognition in this of how to deal with >> things like wideband multiplex digital modes that take one (or more) >> wideband channels but transport voice as or *more* efficiently than >> multiple adjacent narrowband channels. In the commercial world, the goal >> is one of spectral efficiency, NOT specifically to require a particular >> user to have a very narrow channel, and that should probably be the case >> here as well. >> >> Matthew Kaufman >> > > There is not enough room in the 2M band for such things anyway, even if > all the current wideband systems went away. Just like there isn't enough > room on 2M for ATV. LMR has much more spectrum for things like TDMA, etc. > Frankly, any emission wider than current wideband FM needs to stay above > 420 MHz, where there is some room. > 1. Not really true. Systems that used existing wideband channels and carried 2 or 4 voice paths simultaneously using TDMA would fit just fine and,
2. The ARRL study (whether or not one thinks it is worth more than the paper it will use) is about "VHF/UHF bands" and not just 2M. As for me, I've got a 440 MHz system with 6 repeaters (4 of them voted and simulcast) all on the same frequency, and wideband digital on several bands including a multi-megabit 46 mile point-to-point link on 3480 MHz. Matthew Kaufman
