--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Chris Jewell <ae6vw-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
I certainly wish that regulation-by-bandwidth had been rolled into the
current rulemaking, but the next-best choice is for the Commission to
act promptly on that matter now that the current rules are out.
>>>The FCC was not unaware of the ARRL's regulation-by-bandwidth
proposal when they issued the current Omnibus rules. If the FCC
thought the ARRL proposal had merit, they would not have roled out
Omnibus rules that move in the opposite direction (e.g. the new
limits on data). I strongly suspect that the new Ominbus rules *are*
the FCC's response to the ARRL's regulation-by-bandwidth proposal.
>>>The ARRL's regulation-by-bandwidth proposal was deeply flawed; it
would have removed the constraints on unattended (semi-automatic)
operation without providing any means of controlling QRM from the
hidden transmitter effect. If this proposal is indeed dead, I'm
pleased. However, the loss of >500hz data below 30 mHz is highly
unfortunate, and puts a crimp in my personal plan to develop an
interactive party-line protocol capable of background file transfer.
On the bright side, 6m should become more popular...
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
