Topband: Symbol Rates (was [ARRL-LOTW] BoD votes LoTWinitiatives)

[Gary Ferdinand]

Alas, it would appear the BoD does not possess that most uncommon of senses:  common sense.  Symbol rate and bandwidth are closely related as you say.

Gary W2CS




On Jul 24, 2013, at 10:43 AM, "Tom W8JI" <w8ji at w8ji.com> wrote:

>> 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