[Boatanchors] ARRL Band Plan

[Rob Atkinson]

Here is my response to the ARRL's bandplan proposal.  I urge all to
call for the complete separation of modern high speed digital
emissions, or the reinstatement of the CW ID requirement.  Currently
since I am unable to identify any noise falling in my receiver
passband, I ignore it as it is an unidentified emission:

ARRL's band planning fails to address the basic incompatibility
between high speed data and analog transmission modes.  Calling an
allocation "phone/image" does not solve any problems and since the
ARRL's proposal does not address the problem of data "image" etc.
transmissions' flawed integration in the analog phone segments, I will
be against the proposals.

You cannot have modern high speed digital emissions along side or on
top of analog transmissions and not experience difficulties.  It is
true that amateurs must accept interference according to FCC, but it
is desirable to avoid it with simple practical band plans.

Currently, operators who lack modern data processing equipment are
unable to even identify incompetent or malicious operators since there
is no longer a CW identification requirement.

Therefore, digital transmissions must be quarantined in their own
sub-band, including the "image" modes in the analog phone segments, or
the CW identification requirement must be reinstated.   Such an ID
might be 30 wpm CW at the tail end of a digital transmission, which
would not disrupt the data exchange and could be programmed in with
modern software.

Rob
K5UJ

On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 11:19 AM,  <oldradio at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Here's another point of view worth reading.
>
>    http://wireless-girl.com/ARRLletter.html