[160m] FCC Filing for narrow mode segment

[Bill Coleman]

On 1/23/02 12:33 AM, Tom Rauch at w8ji@akorn.net wrote:

>> Perhaps I am far out of the loop here but what does "DOES NOT force
>> PSK..." mean?  Based on Tom's comments later in his post, I'm confused
>> as to where PSK fits.
>
>There was an incorrect assumption RM-10352 would force certain 
>modes like PSK into narrow slots. I wanted to clear that up.

I haven't had a chance to review the entire text of the rulemaking 
petition, but isn't this a bit disingenuous?

After all, aren't what Bill and Jeff calling for is essentially 
mode-segregation like we have on every other HF band? 

And isn't the mode-segregation we have on every other HF band involve 
placeing digital modes low, analog modes high, and CW everywhere?

Wouldn't that affect digital modes like PSK? Digital modes are currently 
permitted EVERYWHERE on 160m. If RM-10352 is made law, wouldn't they be 
restricted to 1800-1843 kHz?

>Remember...160 would have had a narrow mode area like all other 
>bands, if it wasn't pieced back to amateurs in small 25 kHz 
>segments over years of time.

Very likely. But wouldn't that also mean that digital modes like PSK 
would be restricted below the proposed 1843 kHz?

Or are you saying that 160m represents a unique set of circumstances?

Note: I'm not arguing for/against here, I'm just trying to achieve 
clarity as to what is proposed and why (or why not) it should be 
supported.



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