[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition

Subject: RE: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition
From: "Donald Chester" <>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:46:49 +0000
List-post: <>

"The regulation of emission modes in Amateur Radio Service
allocations is a limiting factor with respect to Amateur Radio
experimentation," a synopsis of the petition concludes. "It leads to
attempts to put new technology into a regulatory framework that was
designed only to deal with older analog emissions." In order to
implement digital technologies, an underlying assumption in the
League's draft petition is to provide for an intermediate
bandwidth--between what's needed for the legacy CW and phone
modes--in the middle of certain bands."

I can see the rationale of reserving some space for narrow-band modes like CW and PSK-31, to protect against interference from wideband sources such as analog voice. But if there is to be a segment defined at 3 kHz, what is the point of creating two segments, one to exclude voice and another to exclude RTTY-like digital modes? Interference-wise isn't a 3-khz wide signal a 3-khz wide signal regardless? Would digital radiotelephony be considered voice or non-voice? Isn't this adding unnecessary complication to a subband structure that is already more complex than what exists anywhere else in the world, especially after licence class segmentation is factored in?

I am concerned about possible unintended consequences of this proposal. For example, the status of AM phone is supposed to be specifically protected, but if the League proposal is adopted, instead of being expressly permitted by language embedded in the rules, AM would be protected by nothing more than a footnote.

I suggest that everyone interested in the future of amateur radio read the text of the proposal carefully, and try to come up with an informed opinion and transmit it to the website as requested.


Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

Topband mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>