In the new "bandwidth" proposal...

[N5PVL]

The new bandwidth segregation proposal is interesting.

I was enthusiastic after reading the summary, but upon reading the proposal itself, I saw where a ban on autoforwarding BBS operation on HF had been slipped in there.

The summary kind of skipped over that part.

The proposal went to great lengths to preserve double-sideband AM operation, which was good - but then they arbitrarily decided that the United States needed to be the only country in the free world that cannot participate in the global digital ham radio network.

A global network of digital amateur radio stations on HF is "unnecessary" the proposal claims - because the Internet is so wonderful.

Look about halfway down the proposal, under "Other Specific Rule Changes".

When these folks are asked about this, they blow smoke and run down what thousands of hams around the world participate in. It's not the Internet, and it's not the PACTOR III Mailbox system they're pushing, so it's gotta go.

That kind of mindless intolerance for what other hams do has no place in this hobby.

Fact is: No other group of private individuals in the world have the opportunity and legal authority to build ANY kind of a global-scale digital network that is independent of the Internet. - Fast or slow - besides amateur radio operators. This is our unique privelege.

Only amateurs enjoy this privelege, and the accompanying challenge. These folks want the USA to just give up, and quit participating. - Leave it for the rest of the world to do it without us.

If these hams do not want to participate, that's fine. - But they do not have a right to undercut participation in the global network by other hams here in the US.

Please send a polite E-mail to: bandwidth@arrl.org asking that the ban on autoforwarding HF stations be removed from this proposal.

To see some of the fine organizations and hams that this part of the new proposal would marginalize, see the NETWORK pages at USPacket.org

Charles Brabham, #N5PVL
Director: USPacket
http://www.uspacket.org
n5pvl@uspacket.org

[K3UD]

CW ops also lose the privilege of using CW in any band segment.

73
George
K3UD

[KY5U]

PVL,

Why do you think autoforwarding BBS is out? What could be the motives? This could give us insight into other issues that don't make sense as well.

[AE2NY]

Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Aug. 27 2004,02:59)]CW ops also lose the privilege of using CW in any band segment.

73
George
K3UD

So you're saying that CW is going to go to only very specific frequencies on certain bands?

I'm gonna have to take a look at that proposal a little closer.


Anthony - KI4VPR

[W0DZ]

Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Aug. 27 2004,07:59)]CW ops also lose the privilege of using CW in any band segment.

73
George
K3UD

Don't think that's true. The BW for CW is set at 200 Hz. There is nothing to prohibit you from using LESS than the spec'd BW in other areas. So if you are in the 3 KHz max BW section, you could still use a 200 Hz BW, i.e., CW.

[N7AAO]

By the way, I know I should know this as an Extra, but what is the average bandwidth for 2m FM?

Yes, I know I can look it up, but I'm at work and my reference materials are at home.

[K3UD]

"Don't think that's true. The BW for CW is set at 200 Hz. There is nothing to prohibit you from using LESS than the spec'd BW in other areas. So if you are in the 3 KHz max BW section, you could still use a 200 Hz BW, i.e., CW. "

[K3UD]

Maybe I did not read it correctly, but if you are right, does it follow that any narrow band Digital mode could also be used anywhere in the bands? This seems to contradict the purpose of the proposal, but as I said, I could be wrong.

73
George
K3UD

[K3UD]

oops.........

[KY5U]

MIV, #Yeppers to your question. If you stay within the bandwidth, there is no longer mode restriction.

AAO, That info is in the modulation designator (emission type). The emission type most common in 2m FM is "F3". 20F3 would be 20kHz bandwidth. I believe most current 2m FM transceivers use 12.5kHz bandwidth although 20kHz is allowed. Ask your manufacturer or dealer.