"In return, it does benefit all the other digital modes which are looking for places to operate,"
Alan, that's plain stupid. Looking at my ARRL band/mode chart, I see in EVERY HF band the phrase RTTY and Data. Wow...DATA....there's my place to operate. John KB2HSH --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow <ml9...@...> wrote: > > kb2hsh wrote: > > This is little more than a "frequency grab" by Bonnie that would benefit > > the HF-ALE group, I feel, the most. > > OK, so I have to ask.... how would it benefit HFLink???? > > - HFLink already has well established centers of activity in the current > bandplan > - ALE by definition does not lead to frequency "spreading". If anything, > it concentrates activity onto specific frequencies. > > So if magically "passed" (unlikely), virtually nothing would change for > HFLink operations. > > The only exception to this would be that we would now have a US bandplan > that aligns with a more reasonable international one, which is not the > case now. But it would not increase ALE operations at all, nor change > current centers of activity unless forced to by the new plan. > > So tell me again how this benefits ALE ops????? How would it be a > "frequency grab"?????? > > In return, it does benefit all the other digital modes which are looking > for places to operate, including new modes yet to be defined. That may > not be important to you. But it is to some! What if psk was never able > to stake out a center of activity? Other modes???? > > As to timing of the submission? You guys are empowering Bonnie way too > much. We just found out about it not too long ago when it was posted in > another group. Bonnie was traveling for a bit, and submitted when she > settled in. No more no less. > > It's too easy to villainize people who do not practice your hobby the > way you like, and it weakens the entire hobby! > > I'd ask, why did we all just find out about this???? Why was this input > session not pro-actively positioned to the key user groups so they would > have time to comment? Seems to me like the fingers need to point to the > people soliciting input. Reminds me of the "Hitchhiker Guide to the > Universe" where the input sessions for destruction of earth was posted > on Alpha centauri. "But you had time to provide input!!!! No one > replied!!!". > > I can tell from most of the responses so far that most did not even read > the proposal, or some of the others floating around. It protects CW, and > that is a key component of Bonnie's position for years. Nowhere that I > see does it restrict CW ops to 15khz!!!! > > If this mindset prevailed, we'd still not have SSB, at best using AM & > CW. Or spark! The same "end of the world" arguments took place when SSB > was introduced! > > sorry, guys.... but if conspiracy theories are the best we can come up > with, we all lose! > > Have fun, > > Alan > km4ba >
