Rick Ellison writes: ... > This just makes no sense to me why you would push Pactor III on a > channelized frequency setting..
A good question: I was thinking of sending in a comment on that NPRM, recommending that instead of authorizing only PSK-31 and Pactor-III, that the FCC instead permit all publicly-documented data modes which fit within the authorized bandwidth. However, it appears that the FCC is going to do that in any case. I am still inclined to write in and suggest that digital operation in the 60m band be confined to local or remote control, not automatic, to minimize the chance of interference to the primary users. Unlike some members of this list, I have nothing against Pactor-III on 60m (waste of spectrum when used for keyboard-to-keyboard QSOs is not an issue with the fixed channels on 60m), and nothing against Pactor I and II at all. I do not choose to operate those modes, but neither do I wish to restrict *other* hams to operating as *I* choose. OTOH, I DO object to ham bots interfering with the primary users of spectrum which we share on a secondary basis with other services: it's bad for the amateur service's relationships with other spectrum users. Actually, I even object to the lid-bots on ham-only spectrum outside the automatic-control subbands. I'd like to see the automatic subbands made a bit wider, but the exception removed for automatic stations using 500 Hz or less in response to interrogation by a manually-controlled station. I'll just have to live what we have now, ince the FCC clearly disagrees with me. -- 73 DE KW6H, ex-A6VW, Chris, ae6vw-digitalra...@puffin.com
