The last draft I saw had the following language in:
ARRL > 30 m band: This proposes 200 and 500-Hz bandwidths but does not
propose 3 kHz,
ARRL > which would open the band to phone operation or other
voice-bandwidth modes. It
ARRL > is ARRL's view that voice-bandwidth emissions should not be
permitted in this band
ARRL > because of this relatively narrow secondary international allocation
and the need to
ARRL > avoid interference to the primary service in other countries.
Then Dave Sumner said in "Narrowing the Bandwidth Issues"
"A segment for 3-kHz bandwidth (no phone) of 10.135-10.150 MHz to
accommodate existing and planned future digital operations."
I see in the final version the language has been weakened to:
ARRL > 30 m band: This proposes 200 Hz, 500HZ and 3.5 kHz bandwidths.
While
ARRL > telephony is not encouraged in this band due to the relatively
narrow, secondary
ARRL > allocation status of the Amateur Service, this can best be regulated
by voluntary
ARRL > band planning.
The ARRL's stated position is against phone on 30 meters. Who will have
control over developing a band plan?
73 Art W2NRA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Coleman" <aa4lr@arrl.net>
To: "Art Searle W2NRA" <w2nra@optonline.net>
Cc: <rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL Bandwidth Proposal - FCC Invites Comments
>
> On Jan 13, 2006, at 9:21 PM, Art Searle W2NRA wrote:
>
>>> From: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>
>>>> 4) the wideband allocation on 30 meters.
>>
>> The proposed wideband is "no phone".
>
> What part of the proposed regulation states this? I looked for it and
> couldn't find it.
>
> Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net
> Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
> -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|