KF1K writes:
> The effects of the 160M portion of RM-11306 is NOT "just an
> American/FCC/USA/ARRL" issue. If RM-11306 is implemented, as
> proposed and without changes to incorporate a 160M narrow bandwidth
> segment, 160M operations in all IARU Regions [WILL] be severely
> impacted by the resulting FCC regulation. THIS IS A WORLD-WIDE ISSUE!
>
> I encourage TopBand ops world-wide to file comments relative
> to RM-11306 with the FCC at the EFCS site. You can read my filed
> comments there (record #16) or request a copy of my filing direct
> via email and I will send my Microsoft Word file to you. I will
> be glad to assist you in filing your comments with the FCC.
I agree with Dave. Unfortunately, the ARRL proposal is flawed in
more ways that just the lack of narrow band allocation on 160
meters.
We've suffered through the "gentlemen's agreements" and "Voluntary
bandplans" for thirty years on 160 meters ... they simply don't work
any more on 160 any more than they work on 40 meters ... just look
at the bad blood between CW operators/the "nets" and RTTY operators
between 7030 and 7045 because of the European "bandplans."
The ARRL proposal (RM-11306) also has some serious flaws:
1) the lack of required "listen before transmit" protocols
for any station which automatically responds to calls
from another station (also known as "semi-automatic
operation").
2) the lack of a requirement that all digital protocols be
published and freely available in executable form for
Windows, Apple and Linux platforms to enable monitoring
and "self-policing"
3) the lack of bandwidth regulation/segmentation on 160 meters
4) the wideband allocation on 30 meters.
5) a failure to limit "fully automatic" operation to the
2.7/2.8 KHz bandwidth or greater allocations
73,
... Joe, W4TV
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|