|Subject:||RE: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition|
|From:||"Donald Chester" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Thu, 26 Aug 2004 03:41:06 +0000|
The ARRL is soliciting comments on consideration of regulating subbands by bandwidth
That is correct. This is a proposal to redefine the subbands, and would not affect 160m because topband does not have any subbands.
I'm afraid this one might generate some unintended consequences. They are proposing four different bandwidth subbands, some of which exclude certain specific modes, plus the exception for AM phone. This would appear to be combined with the existing licence class segmentation. The result would be an extremely complex matrix of subbands, defined by various combinations of bandwidth, emission modes and licence privileges.
There has to be a better way to accomplish the stated purpose of the proposed petition.
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
_______________________________________________ Topband mailing list Topband@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||RE: Topband: Re: Feeding the tower, R. Kline|
|Next by Date:||Re: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition, Earl W Cunningham|
|Previous by Thread:||Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition, Jim Monahan|
|Next by Thread:||Re: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition, Earl W Cunningham|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|