[RTTY] ARRL Bandwidth Proposal - FCC Invites Comments

[Bill Coleman]

Joe, you certainly are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that.  
Indeed, several hams I respect greatly have similar opinions. I just  
have a few observations of my own:

On Jan 13, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> 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.

Yes, but these were largely fixed after Riley sent a few warnings to  
the handful of cantankerous troublemakers.

Interesting that every where else in the world, they manage to  
segregate modes of operation by gentleman's agreements, but here in  
the USA, we aren't disciplined enough to be trusted to do the same....

> If the regulatory paradigm is to be occupied bandwidth, it
> should be applied to all bands.

At the same time, we shouldn't be eliminating privileges that already  
exist. How frustrating is it going to be when some rare DX shows up  
running RTTY on 7030 kHz a week after these rules go into effect?

I know how frustrating it is to listen in a DX Phone contest to the  
whole world working each other below 7100 kHz, and not being able to  
join in.

> 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.

To say nothing of all the SSB operation in Regions 1 and 3.

Some of this will be helped by 2009 when Regions 1 and 3 get  
7100-7200 kHz.

>>>   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.

On 17m and 12m, 50% bigger than 30m, 60% of the band is dedicated to  
wide signal operation. 60m is even smaller, less than 1/3 the size of  
30m - yet 100% of it is dedicated to wide signal operation.

Seems like there ought to be a limited amount of 30m that could be  
used for wide signal operation. The ARRL proposed 30%. Given the  
level of activity on 30m, that doesn't seem unreasonable.

Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901