It is ironic that the FCC decision is actually much more restrictive than what some digital proponents were expecting.
Based on my earlier comments, I am doubtful that the FCC would reverse what seems to be their new concept of having narrow bandwidth areas and wide bandwidth areas. What I really think has to happen, is for the FCC to realize that it would be a reasonable compromise to allow wide bandwith data in the wide bandwidth phone/image areas. Although there is opposition by many non-digital hams, I think the main reason for this is that they do not realize that the signals are often identical sounding whether image (FAX)/digital voice/digital data. To highlight this, if I scan a document and send it as an image, it should be completely legal on the phone/image portions of the bands, but if I conserve on the bandwidth, and use a text based method, then it would not be legal. It just seems to me that reasonable people would find this ... unreasonable. 73, Rick, KV9U expeditionradio wrote: >Wow. It appears that the FCC has actually redefined "Data" below 30MHz >at less than 500Hz... "data" in the common way that 99% of hams send >data using digital modes on computers and ham transceivers. > >I've often said that the antiquated content-based FCC rules have been >like a Technology Jail for USA hams. > >Just when it appeared that we might be given our freedom, joining the >rest of the world's hams using state-of-the-art HF digital >technology... someone at FCC just sentenced us back to the Digital >Dark Ages. Was this cruel act done by intention or was it just a >sloppy error? Who knows? > >15 December will be a very sad day indeed... USA hams will be sitting >on Technology Death Row for HF data. :( > >Bonnie KQ6XA > > > >
