[RTTY] ARRL Bandwidth Proposal - FCC Invites Comments

[George Henry]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Turner" <dezrat1242 at ispwest.com>
To: "George Henry" <ka3hsw at earthlink.net>; <rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] ARRL Bandwidth Proposal - FCC Invites Comments


> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> At 09:54 AM 1/14/2006, George Henry wrote:
>
>>The only reasonable solution that I can see is to relegate semi-automatic
>>operation to a small set of discrete frequencies, like the beacon system,
>>and we all steer clear of them.  There needs to be at least this one
>>exception to regulation-by-bandwidth.  That will go in my comments to the
>>FCC.
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> I think what the original poster really wants is to outlaw automatic
> operation, which I heartily agree with, at least for HF.
>

But since the horse is out of the barn, so to speak, that's not likely to 
happen, so parking them
on fixed, known frequencies is probably the best solution.


> As a matter of philosophy, I believe HF ham radio should be run by
> humans, not machines. HF is especially sensitive to this because of
> the constantly changing propagation, unlike for example, VHF
> repeaters. If one wants to negate this principle, then one needs to
> have dedicated frequencies, which I am also against having embedded
> in the FCC rules, at least for HF.
>

I really don't see any other way...  now that they are out there, you'll 
never get the users to give them up.  Kinda like guns, welfare, Social 
Security, etc.  Unless the Internet has a much greater impact in making them 
obsolete...