[CW] ARRL BOD Jan. 19-20, 2001

[N2EY@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/14/03 12:47:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
ken.d.brown@verizon.net writes:


> >64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that 
> at
> >the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise
> >Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode.
> >
> >This is GOOD.   It simply places all the digital narrow band signals, 
> including cw, PSK, RTTY etc. in one subband, and the wide band stuff like SSB and 
> SSTV in another , so they dont intefere with the narrow band signals.  
> >
> >  
> >
> This might be good, or it might be bad. "Subbands by signal bandwidth" 
> is very non-specific. How many subbands? How big? How many different 
> bandwidth subdivisions? Where are the lines drawn? This statement does 
> not say.

I think the main idea of the proposal is to get away from the cumbersome 
system we have today where signals are separated by mode definitions rather than 
occupied bandwidth. For example, we are limited to 300 baud for HF/MF data 
transmission in the non-phone subbands - but we can run 850 Hz shift FSK 45 baud 
RTTY! If somebody wants to develop "PSK-500", which would take up less of the 
band, they have to do it elsewhere.


> 
> I would be happy if half of the HF bands were reserved for under 100 Hz 
> bandwidth mode(s), and the other half was for greater than 100 Hz 
> bandwidth modes. 

You might want to check on how wide a CW signal is at, say, 40 wpm.

73 de Jim, N2EY


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---