I wasn't restricting my comments to HF. The FCC regulations seem excessively complex and I'd like to see fewer restrictions on HF, VHF and UHF bands. I'd like to see any mode allowed on any part of any band with restrictions only on bandwidth. Some countries impose an 8 kHz bandwidth limit on HF and others don't impose any limits. I haven't seen government regulations from any other country (at least from Australia and a few European countries) that specify nearly as much detail about emissions as those in the U.S.
If I'm at the low end of an HF band, I can now send send text (RTTY), data or images using PSK31. If I'm at the high end of the band, I'd like to send text, voice, data or images in a 20 kHz bandwidth on wider bands or 8 kHz on narrower bands. Right now data and text are limited to the lower portions of each band where wideband emissions would be a problem. If I'm on a VHF band I'd like to see a 200 kHz bandwidth limit for portions of each band rather than the 20 kHz limit. On 70 cm I'd like to eliminate the 100 kHz bandwidth restriction on data and make it at least 6 MHz. I have operated HF digital modes on 40, 20 and 10 meters in the past, but my experments with wideband digital modes have been restricted to 6 meters and 70 cm. 73, John KD6OZH ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 14:51 UTC Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Digi Voice: No Bandwidth Limit There has been some criticism of the U.S.'s supposedly backward ways with amateur radio bandwidths, and other countries (practically everyone else?) being so advanced in this area. If it is true that others are not being held back, what actual new wideband HF modes have been developed that we can not use in the U.S.? How many are actually using these new modes? If not, why are you not doing so? Or is all this criticism being levelled at the U.S. without any substance? 73, Rick, KV9U John B. Stephensen wrote: > My comment was in regards to a question about why the rules need to be > changed. They do because you can't mix voice, image and data on one > frequency in the HF bands. The defect in the ARRL proposal for > regulation by bandwidth was the 3 kHz limit that they chose for HF. I > argued for 25 kHz and then 9 kHz as time went by, but with no effect. > There are also limits on data bandwidth of 20 kHz in the VHF bands and > 100 kHz in the 70 cm band that need to be changed. > > There is no bandwidth limit in the HF RTTY/data segments as > 97.307(f)(2) is only referenced in the table in 97.305 for the > phone/image segments. I agree that digital phone has no bandwidth > limit, but image does. > > 73, > > John > KD6OZH >
