Rick
No legacy mode user has a problem with using a spark
gap if the bandwidth is within the current rules. MANY
like myself have a interest in some forms of DIGITAL
and I myself run some PSK-31.
This is not a digital/legacy mode fight but to prevent
a elite bunch which is under 1,000 HAMS from
DESTROYING large parts of VHF/HF for there OWN gain.
They even proposed allowing 90% of both 6 and 2 meters
to be used for this wide band disaster ... O but all
the rest of us could still have 300 kHz per band
. well 200 since the first 100 is CW only ...
I work on ICOM RADIOS WE HAVE 2,000 of them at work.
I would like to see D-Star grow and become part of 2
and 440 repeater bands THIS WILL TAKE A LONG TIME
.
TOO BAD THEY DID NOT THINK OF POOR 219 MHz which sits
there UNUSED... I know JAPAN does not have 220 but WE
DO .
FACT is no reason to allow wide band users below 219
MHz are not using what they already have ...
As a LONG TIME user of VHF and it being my job since
the ARMY in the 1960's I have seen what the lower end
of the IQ scale can do even on SSB and that's 3 kHz
wide NO THANKS no one I know wants to see 100 kHz wide
radios in the hands of the same class of user. The
idea they this low end would not crank it up to 100
kHz wide and wreck havoc just does not follow history
if its LEGAL there will be hard core users bent on
running any other modes off and NO i do not
believe any talk of lissing before transmitting AIN'T
going to happen.
AGAIN THIS DOES NOT INVOLVE NARROW BAND DIGITAL !
Yep we don't need them on ANY VHF BAND and
particularly WORLD WIDE BANDS like 6 or even 10
meters.
Do we believe the ARRL . SHURE after 40
years as a member they have not changed look at the
late 60's ask those who got burned by the license
changed the league pushed through back 40 years ago
again the members were bypassed ..
D-Star sounds to me as a start but the problem is the
need to have a digital standard a PLUG and PLAY system
so those of us who want to add it can without buying
new radios . THEN you will see it really start to
grow Right now we have almost ZIP in tampabay
. for now .
--- Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce,
I agree that Bonnie has made some very unfortunate
and some would say,
extreme comments in the past and some of us look
upon her claims of what
is legal with some suspicion. But the reason that
ARRL proposed changes
to the regulation to restrict bandwidth was
precisely because current
FCC rules are very loose and most of what we do
falls under the general
concept of good amateur practices.
Under current rules, we base the use of sub bands on
the mode and the
content of the information. Lower down we have the
text data areas (also
typically used for CW, but would not necessarily
have to), then it
switches to voice/image/cw on most HF bands.
ARRL did an absolutely horrible job of explaining
their proposal to the
rank and file radio amateurs who probably make up
close to 99% of the
total active operating. Many hams viewed this as a
way to force digital
voice and wide bandwidth (voice bandwidth) text
digital modes (read
Pactor 3) on the voice bands. Especially because of
the unethical way
that the ARRL packed the Digital Committee that
promoted Winlink2000.
Whether you support Winlink2000 or not, the insuring
of a given outcome,
and completely short circuiting the democratic
process of fair
representation was a sad day for ARRL and hurt them
severely with many
of the more thoughtful and reasonable hams. (After
all, the inventor of
both AMTOR and PSK31 resigned under protest from the
committee when he
realized what was going to happen).
I am not sure if the average ham understood that we
could already use DV
in the voice /image portions of the bands. And once
you allow that, how
could you even tell by ear if the person was sending
voice, data, or
image if using a multipurpose waveform?
If you read Dave Sumner's editorial, he pointed out
that just because
the FCC changes the rules and allows certain
bandwidths in a given area
of the band, it does not necessarily mean that the
ARRL would support
the concept that any mode can be used with that
bandwidth. His point was
that Band Plans would specify what modes and content
are appropriate for
specific frequencies and that DV would not
necessarily be permitted in
areas of analog voice. And certainly not text
digital in analog voice areas.
This is not what I personally want. My preference is
to allow mixed
modes in certain overlapping areas, but it appears
that very few support
this. Under current rules, DV can be used in any
analog voice area,
because it is voice. So can image/SSTV/FAX. But
unfortunately not text
digital. This means that we can not coordinate with
voice as the SSTV
hams do, when we want to experiment with a text
digital mode, even a
wide text digital mode.
