We have a substantial hobby in exploration, restoration and use of vintage
analog equipment and, IHMO, there isn't any reasonable excuse for
arbitrarily terminating this interest.

I don't know what has been discussed on other reflectors, but giving the
ARRL the benefit of the doubt, there are issues that may not have anything
to do with AM per-se.  For example, there is likely pressure building to
provide relaxed amateur licensing to accommodate the communications needs
for a Homeland Security program.  Separately, the present split of voice/CW
may not be optimum on 80 meters, and requests, for example, have been made
by some AM'ers to provide for unfettered space.  Or, a bandwidth regulation
change might be related to addressing the international stipulation that
skill in CW remain a license requirement.

One can speculate that early experiments in digital transmission might
initially use a wide bandwidth; with subsequent development directed toward
a reduction in bandwidth requirement, but regulation shouldn't hamper this
opportunity.

Perhaps the ARRL is thinking of a bandplan with several bandwidth
allocations.  One could be very narrow to accommodate CW and narrowband
digital modes, another could be set for SSB, and/or shared for wide open
experimentation in digital transmission and AM.  Though not at the state of
the art, PWM is one of very few voice digital modes with any "in the field"
development interest on the part of amateurs.

73 de Bill, AB6MT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


----- Original Message -----
From: "WILHITE, JIM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "AMRadio" <AMRadio@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 3:01 PM
Subject: [AMRadio] A rumor about limiting bandwidth


Recently on another reflector I read a rumor about the ARRL proposing a
maximum bandwidth limitation on subbands of 3.5 Kcy.  I sent the following
message to the Executive Director of the ARRL and here is his answer.  I
post for you consumption.  Is it time to get involved with the directors?

73   Jim
de W5JPW




 -----Original Message-----
From: WILHITE, JIM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 1:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Rumors


Hi Dave:

Another rumor has surfaced about the ARRL being supportive of limiting the
bandwidth of signals.  The rumor is 3.5 kHz for wideband signals.  If this
is true, I want you to know how adamantly I am opposed to the proposal.  In
a time when frequency allocations are increasing and band usage is much more
congenial, I find it hard to believe that anyone would support this kind of
proposal.

The rumor is that the ARRL is prepared to sumit a notice of proposed
rulemaking concerning this issue.  Can you please tell me if that is the
case and is the notice being prepared?

Tnx and 73

Jim Wilhite
member #  0008432524
de W5JPW





Well, Jim, all I can tell you is that the ARRL opposed a 3.5-kHz bandwidth
limitation the last time it was proposed, by the FCC in 1976 (Docket 20777),
and I don't know anything that's changed in the meantime to alter that
position.

Probably what set this off was Minute 64 of the July 2002 Board Meeting
which reads in its entirety: 64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr.
Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall
petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth
instead of by mode.

The Board has given us no instruction as to what the petition should propose
with regard to bandwidth. Absent instructions to the contrary, what we draft
(nothing's been done on this as of now) will not propose new restrictions.
But it's certainly true that in going from a regulatory regime based on mode
of emission to one based on bandwidth there are bound to be consequences,
intended and otherwise, that will have to be considered very carefully.

73,
David Sumner, K1ZZ


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed.
Please post in Plain-Text only.---
_______________________________________________
AMRadio mailing list
AMRadio@mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio

Reply via email to