>The ARRL has no clue ..... and do not care ..... I respect your opinion.
>When open 6 meters is packed solid from 50.105 to 50.5 >with ssb there are AM users on 50.400 and PSK-31 >between 50.5 and 50.7 RIGHT NOW the band is closed but >it will not be in 2 to 3 years the only open spot is >between 50.7 and 51.5 above that are simplex nets and >repeaters ..... What you are describing is a result of a bandplan, not regulation. Changing the authorized bandwidth does not change the bandplan or the requirement that we don't interfere with each other. Perhaps we should limit 6 meters to PSK and CW type bandwidths? >On 2 meters here in tampabay 144.200 - 144.300 is week >signal work with nets on 144.210, 144.250 common here >in fl and 144.300 - 144.400 APRS users used in this >state. > >EXCEPT for 146.500 - 146.600 and 147.500 - 147.600 >evenything above 146.000 is used be repeaters. >simplex nets and users are common on 146.500 ( or >146.490 ) 146.520,146.550 and 146.580 and again on >147.20 55 and 58 Again, this is the result of a bandplan, not regulation. How would increasing the authorized bandwidth change this bandplan or the requirement that we don't interfere with each other? >now where are you going to put 500 100 khz wide >signals? .... EXCEPT on 220 or 440 and only because >220 has no one on it and 440 is so big? Increasing the the authorized bandwidth does not require placing 500 100 kHz wide signals on 6 and 2 meters. I think that what you are concerned about is the capacity of a band will be decreased by increasing the authorized bandwidth. Since the FCC does not limit the number of licensees in the ARS I don't see why they will be concerned with capacity. Increasing the authorized bandwidth does not require emissions to use the entire authorized bandwidth. Its like I tell my co-workers when we are traveling: just because the room is a smoking room, does not mean you have to smoke in it. I do understand your concerns Bruce. I don't see the need to increase the authorized bandwidth on 6 and 2 meters and would avoid it for political and public relations reasons. 73, Mark N5RFX
