</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Aug. 16 2002,05<!--emo&:0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Questions about where to put some of the wider, but purely data digital modes, were probably the impetus behind this motion, but the scope of the motion is not limited to digital or digital voice. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> Ed, thanks for such a reasonable posting on the topic. After reading a few complaints about the motion being "taken out of context", I read the minutes on the ARRL site. It is basically as you state: the motivation may have been digital modes, but the proposal is not so limited. The posting by W5JBP gave the impression that he was confused on the term "subband". On most HF and VHF bands both "data" and "phone" (to use Part 97 terms) are each restricted to a subband within each band. It is a bit disconcerting to read this from the ARRL president. One thing that annoys me about these discussions are the mode bigots. One of the good things about amateur radio is the variety of modes one can try, so I rather dislike the posters the disparage AM, even though I am not using it right now. I do hope the ARRL takes this opportunity to expand the options open to hams and not let it be used to eliminate some modes that happen to be unpopular with a few.