On 03/03/2014 06:37 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> What is really a concern is the demands by wideband data advocates for
> priority access to *at least 15%* of every amateur band in spectrum
> coordinated in all three ITU regions. See:
> http://hflink.com/bandplans/iaru_region_2.html
> Applied to 160 meters, that would wipe out 1810 to 1840. On 80 meters
Apparently you did not read that URL. They're not even
asking for 1810 to 1840.
> that would wipe out the entire CW/RTTY band from the top of the extra
> CW allocation, on 40 meters again it would monopolize the band from the
> top of the Extra CW allocation to well into the "foreign phone" band.
> On 20, 17, 15, and 12 it would wipe out the entire spectrum currently
> used for RTTY/PSK/JT plus most of the non-extra class CW area and on 10
> it would use up the entire CW/data band well into the "beacon band."
>
> Even though the comment period is officially over on RM-11708, it is
> far more important to continue to tell the FCC "No on 11708" than worry
> what ARRL may suggest in terms of an unenforceable band plan.
Equating RM-11708 with something the proposed band plan
from the URL above DOES NOT EVEN ASK FOR, and giving that
as a reason to oppose RM-11708 is nothing short of
disingenious.
Never mind that the proposed band plan is a totally
separate thing from RM-11708, and it would be totally
legitimate to put the automatic digi stations in the
parts of 160, 80 & 40 that are region 2 only, keeping
the automatic stations totally out of the way of DX.
The hflink band plan may be in need of improvement
before it can be considered, but that does not seem
like a valid reason to oppose RM-11708...
--
All rights reversed.
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|