[ARRL-OK] Bandwidth Proposal

[Jim Wilhite]

This coming July the Directors will be discussing a proposal to introduce a 
new Rule Making to the FCC.  Many of you may not be aware of the proposal 
and should be.  The ARRL web page has details about the proposal and I urge 
you to read it.  Some of the proposal is to eliminate segregation by mode 
and introduce regulation by bandwidth. However the mode limits will change 
but segregation by mode will still be the norm.

While this may seem unimportant, it will (may) require amateurs to measure 
the bandwidth of their signals to meet the regulations.  Amplitude 
Modulations is being treated as a special exemption.  SSB will be limited to 
3 KHz and CW to 300 Hz.  These are examples of the new regulation that may 
be proposed to the FCC by the ARRL.

Each of us has a vested interest in this proposal for it will change the 
rules making width of a signal the requirement rather than the mode of 
transmission and where it will be allowed  the rules for all of us to 
follow.  It also will allow automatic stations to collect and forward email 
traffic and other messages.

While the intent may be good, to move regulation into the 21st century, it 
will also put an additional requirement for amateurs to have the means and 
knowledge to measure the bandwidth of their signal to be sure they are not 
too wide.  This is not as easy as using a 756 Pro 3 band scope, but requires 
a spectrum analyzer and an acceptable mask to measure against.  This ability 
is far beyond the means and income of most of the amateur community.  I am 
not convinced that, in its present form, the proposal is a good thing. 
Therefore, I urge all of you to go to the ARRL website and read the proposal 
then forward your comment to Coy, N5OK  n5ok at arrl.org

Many of you have read the editorial in QST but did you really understand it? 
If you didn't or did not read the full proposal, then I urge you to do so 
and send a message to Coy about how you feel.  Regulation by bandwidth could 
be a good thing if at the same time other considerations were made. 
Remember promises are one thing, and written rules are something else.  For 
example, Dave Sumner has stated verbally that there would be no need to have 
the equipment to measure the bandwidth.  However if you are faced with an 
requirement to do so by rule, verbal promises are not acceptable.

I have personally registered my opposition to the proposal to Coy and I urge 
you to do the same.  This proposal appears to be protection for digital 
modes only and protecting one mode over the other is not acceptable to me. 
I urge you to take the time to read the proposal and make your wishes known.

73  Jim
W5JO