Topband: ARRL Board Requests Member Comments About Digital Modes

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

 > Apparently you did not read that URL. They're not even
 > asking for 1810 to 1840.

Although they do not specifically ask for an allocation on 160 meters,
their principle of 15% of every amateur band located the preferred
spectrum for common access across all three regions is clearly stated
at the top of their manifesto.

> Equating RM-11708 with something the proposed band plan from the URL
> above DOES NOT EVEN ASK FOR, and giving that as a reason to oppose
> RM-11708 is nothing short of disingenious.

Pointing out that allowing wideband modes *of any kind* in spectrum
traditionally protected against interference from those modes - and
pointing out that allowing the camel's nose into the tent will only
make that interference worse - is not disingenuous.

ARRL's RM-11708 is totally off base.  They needed to ask only one
thing of the Commission - to add RTTY and Data to Voice and Image
where specified in 97.305(c) below 30 MHz and add a blanket 500 Hz
bandwidth limitation where voice and image are not currently given.
Placing a 500 Hz limitation in the traditional "narrow band" area
and allowing wideband RTTY and data where other wideband modes are
already permitted (and where wideband modes are already limited to
2.8 KHz for single channel and 6 KHz for dual/multiplex operations)
would have solved all of the bandwidth related issues without exposing
99% of all current CW, RTTY and data activity to potentially
unresolvable interference.

What is disingenuous is to petition for 2.8 KHz for data on the
grounds that it establishes a limitation where none exists as if
there are any amateur transceivers capable of operating with data
bandwidth greater than 2.8 KHz.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 3/4/2014 10:49 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 03/03/2014 06:37 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
>> What is really a concern is the demands by wideband data advocates for
>> priority access to *at least 15%* of every amateur band in spectrum
>> coordinated in all three ITU regions.  See:
>>        http://hflink.com/bandplans/iaru_region_2.html
>> Applied to 160 meters, that would wipe out 1810 to 1840.  On 80 meters
>
> Apparently you did not read that URL. They're not even
> asking for 1810 to 1840.
>
>> that would wipe out the entire CW/RTTY band from the top of the extra
>> CW allocation, on 40 meters again it would monopolize the band from the
>> top of the Extra CW allocation to well into the "foreign phone" band.
>> On 20, 17, 15, and 12 it would wipe out the entire spectrum currently
>> used for RTTY/PSK/JT plus most of the non-extra class CW area and on 10
>> it would use up the entire CW/data band well into the "beacon band."
>>
>> Even though the comment period is officially over on RM-11708, it is
>> far more important to continue to tell the FCC "No on 11708" than worry
>> what ARRL may suggest in terms of an unenforceable band plan.
>
> Equating RM-11708 with something the proposed band plan
> from the URL above DOES NOT EVEN ASK FOR, and giving that
> as a reason to oppose RM-11708 is nothing short of
> disingenious.
>
> Never mind that the proposed band plan is a totally
> separate thing from RM-11708, and it would be totally
> legitimate to put the automatic digi stations in the
> parts of 160, 80 & 40 that are region 2 only, keeping
> the automatic stations totally out of the way of DX.
>
> The hflink band plan may be in need of improvement
> before it can be considered, but that does not seem
> like a valid reason to oppose RM-11708...
>