>>>AA6YQ comments below
-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of k4cjx
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 2:12 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ROS back bigger and better !
Amazing that one thinks that 1 percent can cause any type of difference,
anywhere, especially on the Phone bands.
>>>When that 1 percent deploys unattended stations that transmit without
first checking to see if the frequency is in use, they can create havoc far
out of proportion to their fraction of ham community.
Regulation by bandwidth and not by mode seems to be working everywhere that
it is allowed. under a bandwidth regulatory environment, there is no "phone
band."
>>>True, if ops generally have the courtesy to not QRM existing QSOs. Those
who rudely deploy unattended stations without competent busy frequency
detectors are what make "regulation by bandwith" unacceptable.
BTW, it wasn't "winlink" that wanted anything, it was the ARRL who wrote the
proposal. There were flaws in it, but it was headed in the proper direction.
it will return as we move toward a digital future.
>>>The ARRL withdrew its "regulation by bandwidth" proposal because it had
no effective response to the factual assertions that this proposal would
greatly expand the frequency range accessible to unattended stations without
providing any means of ensuring that such stations would not QRM existing
QSOs. When those who deploy unattended stations upgrade them to rarely QRM
existing QSOs (emergency conditions excepted), "regulation by bandwidth"
will become possible.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
