Jim, Pactor 3 is not classified as a narrowband mode. It is a fairly wideband digital mode.
The FCC made a very incorrect claim in the Report and Order, that stated: "The Rules also subdivide all but two of these bands into a frequency segment in which amateur stations may transmit only emissions that require a narrow bandwidth, such as telegraphy, data or radio teletype (RTTY) emissions, and a frequency segment in which amateur stations may also transmit emissions that require more bandwidth, such as voice or image emissions." The fact is that there are other modes such as P3, wide versions of Olivia, MT-63, that are similar to the bandwidth needed for voice communication. They go on further to make it very clear that they view the Data/RTTY area as narrowband and the voice/image area as wideband and divided up 80 meter band to "result in a more equitable division of spectrum between users of narrowband and wideband mode." Footnote 60 is most interesting: "... this division would result in two hundred channels for stations transmitting telegraphy and other narrowband emissions and one hundred thirty three channels for stations transmitting voice and other wideband emissions." They also seem to be suggesting that 500 Hz is the maximum size that is appropriate for narrow band modes and why they made the limit at that point, but they also would not go along with the ARRL request that they not impose a 500 Hz BW limitation on data emissions an d would not make it 3 KHz, yet they allowed the previous modes to be wider. 73, Rick, KV9U jgorman01 wrote: >A big problem I have with the request is the classification of pactor >3 as a "narrowband" data mode. I recently found some new documents >that show the necessary bandwidth of this mode as 2K40J2D, i.e. 2.4 >kHz. To me, this sounds more like a definition of wideband, >especially considering what the FCC said in their latest R&O. I don't >think it is appropriate to change the "standard" of what is wideband >versus narrowband without a formal filing of a petition and some >comment period. > >Also, the ARRL had a chance to comment on this during the normal >comment period and chose not to. They didn't even include it in their >request for an erratum change for the J2D <500 Hz issue. To issue a >stay at this late period ignores the process requirements of the FCC >and also puts many hams at risk of violating regulations because of >lack of notification of the stay. The ARRL should simply file another >petition and let it go through the process the correct way. > >Jim >WA0LYK > >
