[RTTY] ARRL Bandwidth Proposal - FCC Invites Comments

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

AA4LR writes:

> >   3) the lack of bandwidth regulation in 160 meters
>
> Oh, no. That's how it should be. And perhaps should be on
> every band,  like every other country in the entire world.

Not on your life ... 160 has had problems for 30 years (ever
since LORAN sharing went away) due to incompatible operating
modes and usage.  There aren't enough "gentlemen" who respect
"gentlemen's' agreements" and "voluntary bandplans" only apply
to the other guy.

If the regulatory paradigm is to be occupied bandwidth, it
should be applied to all bands.  Consider the amateur HF
spectrum like the National Parks ... installing an Interstate
Highway past "Old Faithful" would certainly increase access
but it would also ruin the very thing the National Park System
was intended to protect.

40 meters suffers from the same problem between 7030 and 7050
as 160 meters.  CW/US nets and international RTTY activity
are not really compatible in the same spectrum.  When the
usage of one overwhelms the other, tempers get short and
feelings get hurt.

>
> >   4) the wideband allocation on 30 meters.
>
> About doggone time.

Nonsense.  There is no place for a 3 KHz (or 2.7/2.8 KHz)
signal on an allocation as narrow as 30 meters - particularly
an allocation on which amateurs are still a secondary user.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV