> The ARRL proposal would segregate signals by bandwidth,
> rather than mode. This encourages development and use of
> digital modes, and IMHO is forward thinking.
I agree, except it does not include 160. So I commented it
should include 160.
> 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.
This proposal is moronic. There is no other way to describe
it.
They want all mode and bandwidth rules removed. I can't
imagine anyone, with the exception of people who enjoy
causing problems, supporting that plan. Essentially it
would turn the amateur bands into a place where the
individual operator's judgment determines what mode and
bandwidth he puts in what part of the band.
I can't believe anyone who understands radio communications
and the nature of people would every support such a concept.
Maybe it is a tongue-in-cheek mirror of the ARRL plan. They
want a new way of keeping order, so someone else decided to
ask for a new way to create chaos.
73 Tom
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|