I think proposed symbol rate verbiage is inspired by digital voice technology.
As long as digital voice doesn't come to CW bands I'm OK. But I do not see
anything in the language that would ban digital voice in CW bands, am I wrong?
I am strongly against digital voice taking up bandwidth on current CW bands. I
am fine with digital voice being used on the phone bands. I would discourage
(through bandplans and international coordination) digital voice from EU in the
upper parts of US 40M CW band.
I have nothing against low-bandwidth digital modes like JT65 in the 1838-1840
region. But I do strongly encourage ARRL to work with EU societies and
rationalize bandplans especially on 40M where the CW sliver is already so tiny
tiny and shared with PSK31 in 7035-7040. That's not so much a FCC action as it
is a ARRL or IARU action.
Tim N3QE
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom W8JI
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:43 AM
To: Brian Machesney; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Symbol Rates (was [ARRL-LOTW] BoD votes LoTWinitiatives)
> 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
|