[160m] RM-11305

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

KA8DDZ writes:

> I read it, and I am still not sure I understand it. It sounds like
> rather than designate 7.000 to 7.150 for A1, RTTY etc it does
> the same thing only separates by bandwidth type. Not trying to be
> a wise guy here, just want to understand what it is we are petitioning.
> Why would I be at the mercy of other wider operators if the bands are
> segmented based on bandwidth?

The "Communications Think Tank" proposal calls for the removal of all
mode based regulation.  In essence it would transform the US rules to
those of Canada, Mexico, and the European Union where the only
separation is "gentlemen's agreements" or "voluntary bandplans."

We've suffered through the "gentlemen's agreements" and "Voluntary
bandplans" for thirty years on 160 meters ... they simply don't work.
Need another example ... look at 40 meters with all name calling that
goes on between the nets and RTTY operators between 7030 and 7045
because of the European "bandplans."

The ARRL proposal (RM-11306) also has some serious flaws:

In general the most objectionable portions of the ARRL proposal
are:

  1) the lack of required "listen before transmit" protocols
     for any station which automatically responds to calls
     from another station (also known as "semi-automatic
     operation").

  2) the lack of a requirement that all digital protocols be
     published and freely available in executable form for
     Windows, Apple and Linux platforms to enable monitoring
     and "self-policing"

  3) the lack of bandwidth regulation in 160 meters

  4) the wideband allocation on 30 meters.

  5) a failure to limit "fully automatic" operation to the
     2.7/2.8 KHz bandwidth or greater allocations

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV