Both of these proposals require careful reading. The
devil is undoubtedly in the details.
The ARRL proposal would segregate signals by bandwidth,
rather than mode. This encourages development and use of
digital modes, and IMHO is forward thinking.
The Communications Think Tank proposal, based on the first
7 pages of 16 having been read, is less clear as to what it
wants. Among other things, it comments about discouraging
(or is it disallowing?) split operation for DX. It will
require a bit of study to find what I suspect are old pitfalls
in this one.
What's it mean for topband? Well, if we are to recall a thread
here about two weeks ago...split operation for international QSO's
on topband is the only sane way to operate. For me, anything that
forces the opposite is ignorant of reality. At the same time,
we NEED the ARRL's forward thinking proposal. Otherwise, we're
doomed to repeating the past.
What it means for topband, in my opinion, is that the need for
a more highly evolved gentlemen's agreement will be greater than ever.
We have this forum, through which to grow and groom it. Permitting
digital on 160 won't kill cw or ssb....at least, no more than SSB
contests wipe out the cw portion for a weekend. :)
Go read these things fully...then comment.
And Dave...thanks for bringing this to light.
n2ea
jimjarvis@ieee.org
jimjarvis@verizon.net
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|