Why is a 200 cy bandwidth ridiculous? I was greatly love to see that,
where we are using PSK.
Why do you want 500 cy on 3.5-3.535? Thats CW country and that would only
draw other modes into where the CW DX is. Likewise 40-30-20 and 17 meters.
We dont need 500cy for cw do we?
And EXCUS ME? Dropping the Extra only segments to 10 kc on 40 and 80? I
passed that test in order to get 25 KC. You will have a heck of a sales job
on that one.
Bonnie, there are still many of us that arent interested one iota in
automatic modes, and probably the majority of those are the very ones
working down in that lower segment. You will never sell ME on it.
This is exactly the reason the ARRL is drawing back on this to start with.
Any change at all is going to make a LARGE segment of amateurs very unhappy.
I certainly see a reason for bandwidth management, but not at this cost.
Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.
moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
----- Original Message -----
From: "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 7:57 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL Withdraws "Regulation by Bandwidth"
Petition, Plans to Refile
> > ARRL Withdraws "Regulation by Bandwidth" Petition
>
> Although this might delay USA hams' release from Technology Jail,
> perhaps it will lead to the development of a better bandwidth-based
> spectrum management plan, without the need for "AM phone loophole
> contortions", ridiculously narrow 200Hz bandwidth segments,
> voice-prohibition bands, or data-prohibition bands.
>
> Perhaps this will also lead to more reasonable HF Automatic Subbands
> that could work toward pleasing "both sides of the aisle" such as:
>
> 1980-2000 kHz
> 3575-3630 kHz
> 7100-7125 kHz
> 10135-10150 kHz
> 14100-14125 kHz
> 18080-18110 kHz
> 21100-21150 kHz
> 24900-24930 kHz
> 28100-28200 kHz
>
> It would be good to see band segmentation at more reasonable
> power/bandwidths (necessary bandwidth):
> 500Hz at 1.5kW PEP Transmitter Power
> 3kHz at 1.5kW PEP Transmitter Power
> 5kHz at 100W PEP Effective Radiated Power in the General SubBands
> 10kHz at 100W PEP Effective Radiated Power in the Extra SubBands
>
> 500Hz Bandwidth limitation is not needed on some bands, but it would
> be helpful on 80-17m bands. Some suggestions for 500Hz SubBand
> segmentation:
> 3500-3535 kHz
> 7000-7025 kHz
> 10100-10115 kHz
> 14000-14025 kHz
> 18068-18075 kHz
>
> This could go along with a reduction of the Extra-only segments at the
> bottom of the 80m and 40m bands to:
> 3500-3510 kHz
> 7000-7010 kHz
>
> --
>
> 73---Bonnie KQ6XA
>
> (Trying out the new Nomex catsuit)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Announce your digital presence via our DX Cluster
telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
>
> Our other groups:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wnyar
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Omnibus97
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date: 4/26/2007
3:23 PM
>
>
