Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. Allowing designated frequencies for just one purpose, in your case email, will open the doors for requesting designated frequencies for all kinds of things, not just mode restrictions. Some will want restricted frequencies for qrp only, dx only, emcomm only, social nets only, traffic nets only, ad infinitum. You will end up with a balkanized set of frequency restrictions that will not be manageable.
Please explain how you would handle these requests in a fair manner. Simply saying that automated traffic systems should have designated spectrum free of interference while no one else has the same advantage doesn't explain why these systems should receive special treatment. Why do you feel peer-to-peer should be blocked from using any frequency? Are these conversations somehow worth less than the email you wish to send. You also didn't address the issue of how you will handle qrm from other automated systems. This will be as important as the peer-to-peer conversations you feel are the problem. With the complaining right now, I wonder what it will be like 5 years from now when we start reaching solar maximum. Until someone can convince the FCC to change tradition and move away from shared amateur spectrum to a assigned channels for different modes/purposes, we will need to share. The desire for wide bandwidth, high throughput modes on HF is like taking a midget race car to a go-cart track and telling everyone "my car is better" so get off the track so I can use it. You had better be able to explain why rag chewing and paper chasing are not worthy endeavors for hams to pursue rather than just saying people should get out of your way because you have a better use for the spectrum. Somehow I think your attitude has a hint of arrogance in it. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Jim, > > You really must be making a tongue in check joking reply here, that > is the only way that I can take such a reply as the Amateur Radio > bands have been broken down into specific use for decades and ever > changing. I can NOT go down to 14.004Mhz and make a SSB contact as it > is dedicated to CW as a prime example. On the other hand I can not go > into the dedicate Phone and lessor Image sub bands and use MT63. > > In my opinion, tor the Amateur Radio Service to continue it needs to > constantly change and adapt to the times and the needs of those that > the ARS serves and I see it, that does not mean the individual that > just wants to Rag Chew or Chase Paper ( which I love to do by the > way), but the larger picture overall and in this day and age that > also means providing for higher speed digital communications at > greater BW in support of traffic automation with multiple routing and > embedded document support for HF e-mail. Creating a sub band for > traffic automation which has basically always been done, but still > allowed for peer-to-peer in the mix ( which as always a stupid > approach) where the sub band is set aside such activity only, keeping > it away from peer-to-peer and keep peer-to-peer away from it seems to > be the best solution as then, the only interference to and from such > activity would be from such activity, it really makes sense to me and > hopefully it will make sense to those who regulate the Amateur Radio > Service at the world level. > > /s/ Steve, N2CKH > > > At 11:20 AM 9/18/2007, you wrote: > > Once you set > >a precedent that amateur spectrum can be "assigned" to a specific use, > >you open the doors for everyone to claim their piece of the pie. Just > >exactly how would you propose to deal with this? >
