Trevor,
The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a
common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an
interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and
accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the
mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to
communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists
between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago
when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required
to know CW.
I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the
problem with solely "regulation by bandwidth" is NOT a solution,
especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to
cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL
"regulation by bandwidth" petition to the FCC was withdrawn after
already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that
bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less
ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is
why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all
costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining, and
therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use, but
use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone. Since
it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum
inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a
future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need
and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to restricted
by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a "common
language" for frequency use mitigation.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor . wrote:
Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I
was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org
On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report
(page June 1976) says
"Rather than further complicate the present rules," the Commission
said, "with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners'
requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific
emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. "We propose, instead," the
Commission continued, "to replace the present provisions with
limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal may
occupy in the various amateur frequency bands. Within the authorised
limitations any emission would be permitted."
It would seem that deletion of emission types from Part 97 is exactly
what is needed now to permit experimentation. Perhaps the FCC should
be asked to re-introduce Docket 20777
Trevor
