Alas, it would appear the BoD does not possess that most uncommon of senses:
common sense. Symbol rate and bandwidth are closely related as you say.
Gary W2CS
On Jul 24, 2013, at 10:43 AM, "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com> wrote:
>> I don't understand your objection to removal of the symbol rate language.
>> Under the existing band plan, CW is expected to co-exist with other
>> "digital" modes of all kinds.
>>
>
> I think perhaps Joe is objecting to the potential **bandwidth** of modes
> mixing with narrow modes. Many people either don't understand, or are
> unwilling to admit, that digital modes can occupy a wide bandwidth, and that
> many or most people cannot copy or recognize what is being sent on a
> different mode.. Modes really should be segregated by bandwidth and
> information type, and symbol rate is at least one way to somewhat set limits
> on bandwidth.
>
> I'd prefer to have plans by actual bandwidth, and by compatibility of
> decoding. It's wonderful that some people have solutions to their personal
> operating style or habits and are not bothered by some existing mode mixes.
> In the long term, and for the overall good, it makes no sense at all to mix
> incompatible modes, or especially to mix significantly different bandwidths.
>
> Anyone with an ounce of common "radio" sense should be able to think about
> this, and understand the potential problems of allowing anything anywhere.
>
> 73 Tom
> _________________
> Topband Reflector
_________________
Topband Reflector
|