[K3PZN-List] There Goes the Neighborhood

[Alfred Bisasky]

Thie article appeared on eHam.net about a week or so ago.  Band-plans by 
bandwith seem like a good idea until you read the fine print.  Is it really 
what we need or is it ARRL trying appease a small handfull of their 
"Warloards".  You will have to judge for yourself.

73 Al K3ZE



Bandplan by Bandwidth
Garry Rife (N5GLR) on November 8, 2005
View comments about this article!



Some time has passed since we last heard from the ARRL concerning their 
proposal to regulate the AR sub-bands by "bandwidth" rather than the current 
method...by mode (CW, SSB, digital).
Here's the link to the ARRL website to read the latest ARRL Board action:

http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/01/100/?nc=1

Like it or not, ARRL is pushing this proposal. Now is the time to prepare 
your thoughtful comments, pro or con, to the FCC if it becomes an NPRM.
Frankly, I'm opposed. The arguments against have been well articulated by 
folks far more literate than me so, I'll try to summarize my reasons here.
After reading many discussions on this proposal, I'm convinced it would be a 
bad thing for AR. This proposal appears to be a trojan horse designed to 
allow Pactor III (i.e. Winlink/email via ham radio) in far larger areas of 
the bands than currently allocated. Automated (i.e. unattended) stations are 
currently allowed to operate in narrow portions of the bands. These "node" 
operators comprise about 2% of the ham community but, want to 
stake-out/claim (own?) frequencies of their choosing to run automated/robot 
stations for the transfer of email messages and other documents. The 
bandwidth requirements for Pactor III exceed SSB bandwidth and approaches or 
exceeds AM bandwidth needs. The equipment and software is proprietary and 
expensive ($1,000 for modem?). The "robot" stations cannot reliably monitor 
to avoid interference with on-going QSOs and have demonstrated, and continue 
to demonstrate, that they will not abide by "gentlemen's agreements" 
concerning the current bandplans.
I strongly believe we should be engaged in finding transmission methods that 
need less bandwidth, not more. The HF bands will be further overcrowded when 
"no-code" licensing takes effect and newly minted Generals begin operating 
there. We certainly don't need to promote or encourage wider bandwidth 
emissions.
Do your research and decide for yourself but, that's how I see it.
Garry
N5GLR