A couple of comments. The FCC must consider more than just how fast data can be sent. It must also consider how to maximize the numbers of users that can access a finite spectrum without waiting.
Your point assumes there is queuing system of some sort for that 3 kHz of spectrum and that people will stand in line to use the frequency. In amateur radio there is no queuing system, you can only monitor a frequency until the qso finishes. There is no "grab a number" system to determine who uses it next. And, since qso's are generally random length, you may have to wait one minute or 30 minutes. The traditional way of bypassing this is to move to a clear frequency. It seems obvious to me that the FCC has decided that much more bandwidth for phone users is needed versus bandwidth for CW/RTTY/data (i.e., narrow bandwidth) users and that the narrow bandwidth segment should be shrunk. In doing so, they needed to decide how to "best" use the smaller spectrum, and that part of the determination was how to minimize the wait time for spectrum for the most users. I'm old enough to remember 2, 4, and even 8 party telephone lines. Do you know how much time was wasted in checking the line to see if it was not being used? There were lots of times it was quicker to drive to a neighbors or to town rather than wait for the line to clear. Frustration to the max! Telephone companies have dealt with maximizing the use on shared facilities for over a hundred years. They have sophisticated analysis tools that into account all kinds of variables. However, cusomter wait times is still the one variable that drives everything else. I'll bet I'm not the only ham who would chose wait time for an open frequency as being more important than length of qso. Perhaps the FCC is "encouraging" hams to develop a method of queuing for frequencies and qso times thereby maximizing spectrum use. I suspect a system like this would go a long way to letting the FCC expand bandwidths. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's another way to look at spectrum use. It is better to use a > 3kHz bandwith for 10 minutes than to use a 500Hz bandwidth for 1 hour > to pass the same traffic. On HF, with short propagation openings, it > is better to be able to quickly send the message. Approximately 3kHz > is the defacto worldwide bandwidth standard for HF communication > transceivers. > > This R&O isn't an issue of FCC making rules for "encouragement" to > produce narrower bandwidth signals. It is the result of someone at FCC > that is out of touch with reality. > > The Bigger Issue: The freedom to use existing digital worldwide > standards for HF communications is important for Amateur Radio. > > It is very much like the freedom to use existing analog bandwidth > standards such as SSB and AM voice. Should FCC take take that freedom > away also, under the guise of "encouraging innovation"? Should hams be > forced to develop 500Hz bandwidth voice modes? > > Or, should a wide range of communications methods be "encouraged" in > USA like it is in the rest of the civilized world? > > Bonnie KQ6XA > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
