I'm going to preface this by saying: I'm generally _for_ removing the speed
limit, but I want to see a narrower bandwidth limit imposed upon part of the
band than either the ARRL or FCC are calling for.
That being said...I can see two understandable reasons why a person might want
to oppose removing the 300 bps limit:
1. An argument can be made that removing the limit will eventually increase
demand for fast data modes and systems that use them, due to the increased
capabilities. We already have issues sometimes, on some bands with competing
demands for the limited bandwidth available; increasing demand will only
aggravate those problems.
2. Somewhat related, there are plenty of reports of poor operating behavior by
folks who make use of a certain system that relies on fast data outside the US,
and which will presumably benefit from fast data within the US. The situation
is made worse by poor behavior on the part of a few who retaliate against such
actions. It's understandable that a proposal that would benefit the
system-that-shall-not-be-named should come with a few strings attached to
address the problems associated with it.
While I'm very skeptical that the FCC would buy into either of those lines of
reasoning, they are valid points worth considering.
Because of my skepticism, I'm inclined to think that any issues with the
system-that-shall-not-be-named would be better addressed in a separate petition
for rulemaking (getting League support would be ideal, but I wouldn't hold my
breath), and that efforts for the remainder of the comment period would be best
focused on discussing the potential issues with either a blanket 2.8kHz limit
or a lack of a limit...not in a "the sky is falling" manner, but instead
looking at potential unintended consequences best avoided.
--
Michael Adams | mda@n1en.org
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|