Yes, Chris, But that is only in the text data sub bands. The voice/image/fax areas would allow it as long as it is a published protocol. Do you think that it is unreasonable to have some kind of published protocol?
If it had the published protocol, would you be opposed to using it on the HF bands in the high speed/wide bandwidth digital image areas? What is your thinking on what would happen if regulation by bandwidth was enacted? Wouldn't it be likely that the narrow BW modes would be in the text data portions of the bands and the high speed (voice bandwidth or close to voice bandwidth) would be in the voice/image portions? An alternative would be to have wide BW modes at the upper ends of what is now the text data areas, but there is not all that much room available on some of the bands. 73, Rick, KV9U Chris Jewell wrote: > kv9u writes: > > What rule do you think is stopping U.S. hams from using RFSM2400 other > > than if it is not yet posted with a technical description? > > 97.307(f)(3) "... The symbol rate may not exceed 300 bauds ..." > > That applies to all the "cw,data" subbands below 28 MHz. I wish it > were otherwise, but it's not. We need regulation by bandwidth only, > but that proposal seems to be stalled. :-( > >
