[Elecraft] Regulation by bandwidth

[R. Kevin Stover]

Fred Jensen wrote:
> "Things Elecraft" tend to overlap "Things QRP," so this may be an OK
> subject for this reflector, at least for a bit, since the proposal at
> the ARRL could have an impact (maybe large) on low power operations. 
> Then again, Eric's view on this may differ.
> 
> I believe the current thread on "threat to 30m" is part of a much larger
> issue in a proposal currently being discussed by the ARRL Staff and
> BOD.  The proposal is the result of an ad hoc working group and would
> modify the way the sub-allocations within our bands are determined. 
> Currently, the big distinction is between voice and non-voice (emission
> type).  Data modes generally have been treated as non-voice and confined
> to the so-called CW segments (CW is really legal everywhere).  We've all
> sorted it out, and all of us know that tuning up from the bottom of the
> band, you get CW (often QRQ and DX), CW (QRP, CHN, QRS, and W1AW), then
> RTTY, PSK, and more exotic modes.  SSTV at 14.230 is a partial anomaly,
> since only part of a QSO involves voice.
> 
> The proposal would regulate sub-allocations by bandwidth of the signal
> rather than emission mode, thus solving what some believe to be a
> "problem" with nascent digital voice modes ... is it "voice" (and
> limited to the SSB sub-bands) or "data" (and placed in with PSK31, RTTY,
> AMTOR, PACTOR, and the like)?  The result would be that data modes
> occupying 3 KHz bandwidth would co-exist with analog voice (I think). 
> Some of these data modes operate unattended which poses its own set of
> issues.
> 
> It is a little hard to pin down, but it appears that the ad hoc working
> group was dominated by data-mode users, and that not all of the
> discussions were handled all that cordially.  The proposal itself is a
> fairly complex and hard read ... I still have not figured out the
> ramifications of some of the items.
> 
> I wrote my ARRL Director (W6RGG) and cautioned a "be careful what you
> ask the FCC for" approach.  There may well be merit in the proposal or
> some variant of it, and possibly the current allocation algorithm has
> not kept up with the new technologies and communications modes.  On the
> other hand, I also wonder what percentage of hams actually fool around
> with these modes, and whether or not this is a small group's "solution"
> to a problem the majority of us don't have.
> 
> It reminds me a bit of the hubris surrounding Social Security now, most
> of which would disappear if we all followed the proven engineering and
> scientific principle: "First identify and describe the problem, Then
> look for suitable solutions."  The proposal doesn't do a good or
> credible job of defining and describing the problem, so it's very hard
> to evaluate the proposed solution(s).
> 
> I encourage everyone to review the proposal which can be found at:
> 
> (www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html)
> 
> and I'd be glad to engage in an off-reflector dialog to gain some
> enlightenment in what it really means.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Fred K6DGW
> Auburn CA CM98lw
> K2 #4398
> KX1 # 897 (with which I did 34.46 pts/lb in last night's Spartan Sprint)

Hi all.

IMHO the ARRL's proposal is nothing more than trying to find a place for 
a spectrum hog, namely Win link 2000.

Read more here. http://www.nvbb.net/~jaffejim/Warbler%20News.htm

Reads to my like a sell out to Win Link 2000 by the ARRL.


-- 
R. Kevin Stover	ACØH

K2/100 #4684

Reclaim Your Inbox!
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird