Because Canada is so close to the U.S., it does impact you at some times. It is not easy to operate digital modes when the frequency has voice modes. I notice an increasing use of the area just above 3600 now for Extra Class Licensees operating SSB voice.
Most of us agree with you about the bizarre decision by the FCC to reduce text digital mode space. Of course they did increase image and voice digital mode space by a large amount. While I don't see any possible way to get the FCC to reverse its decision, what I hope will eventually happen is that the FCC will allow wide digital modes (meaning the width of voice SSB signals) to operate in the voice/image portions of the bands, no matter what the content. When you are operating a program such as WinDRM, which can do digital voice, digital image, digital text, etc., there is no way to determine what content is being sent by just hearing the audio. It escapes me why they would want to prohibit the sending of text data as part of the mix of data types. And so I think that it may be possible to convince them that if the mode is basically the same as existing modes that are permitted, then the content should not matter. However, I would definitely NOT include any increased bandwidth for automatic operation. It will be interesting if and when the FCC acts on the bandwidth proposals. But maybe they will make things worse? Hopefully not. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: > > > Don't involve us Canadians in this argument. This problem was > created by the USA, is a problem only within the USA , > and the solution has to come from the USA. > > > As an outsider, it seems that the FCC was overly zealous in > allowing another 200khz for SSB operations, > and stuffing everyone else in a 100khz segment. In actual practice > , very few SSB signals are heard below 3700 khz > so why not campaign for the FCC/ARRL to allocate 3650 up for SSB > and 3650 down to 3550 for digi and the rest for CW > I don't understand why they messed with this in the first place. > > John > VE5MU >
