My comments to FCC about ARRL "bandwidth" proposal.
Hope all of you have done the same.
Dan/W4NTI
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan/W4NTI
To: amham at kc3ol.dynip.com
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 7:39 PM
Subject: AMHAM Mailing List: RM-11306 Comments from W4NTI
I am not in favor of the proposal by the ARRL. Considering the probable
refarming of the bands under another proposal, and the world wide re-allocation
of the 7 MHZ allocation, I just do not
see the need in changing things.
Additionally I am completely and totally against any sort of
UN-ATTENDED Digital activity that is allowed to run amok in any
range they desire, based on "bandwidth". There is NO technology
that I am aware of that can be implemented that would stop these
stations from firing up on top of on-going communications. In fact
it goes on all the time with RTTY, PSK and other digital modes
moving down into the lower ends of the band. They fire up on top of
on going CW communications on a REGULAR basis. And this is with
HUMAN operators on board.
Nor is there a problem with AM Phone operation. AM operators tend to
congregate in very small segements of the HF spectrum. They do not spread out.
Example; 3.883 to 3890. This is quite crowded but
adequate for the most part. Twenty meters you will find AM at around
14.285 and both of these are mostly at night. And when ten meters is
open you will find it around 28.1 to 28.2, and this is WORLDWIDE. I
do NOT see a problem with the limited frequency usage, or the wide
bandwidth of a full power, 100% modulated AM signal. Which BTW is
is quite rare these days anyway.
When you consider a SSB signal is allowed 1500 Watts PEP Output, I see NO
problem.
-------------- next part --------------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/239 - Release Date: 1/24/2006
|