RE: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition

["Donald Chester" <k4kyv@hotmail.com>]

> The ARRL is soliciting comments on consideration of regulating subbands by 
> bandwidth
> rather than by mode.
>
> It appears that this is to include the HF bands, as indicated below, but 
> there is no mention
> of 160 meters.

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.

Don K4KYV

_________________________________________________________________
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