Joe,
I don't understand your objection to removal of the symbol rate language.
Under the existing band plan, CW is expected to co-exist with other
"digital" modes of all kinds.
Now, I don't like to hear even narrow-bandwidth PSK or RTTY signals when
I'm operating in the "traditionally CW" portions of the bands, but I don't
believe this is even primarily a question of symbol rate. When CW contest
activity extends into, through and beyond the "traditionally digital"
portions of the bands, I find it very difficult to pick a CW signal out of
a densely-packed cluster of PSK carriers or RTTY stations. In my
experience, it is not the symbol rates of the PSK and RTTY stations that
cause the interference, but the ability of my brain to discriminate against
the natures of modulation of those signals.
I agree with you that we need to review the band plans. But to me that
doesn't mean that we should allow the persistence of language which may
hold back technical progress.
73 -- Brian/K1LI
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists@subich.com> wrote:
>
>
> Save us from a Board of Directors that would not know Digital Operation
> if it bit them on the ass. All we need is a bunch of 2.8 KHz wide
> chunks of "white noise" across the entire "non-voice" spectrum. If
> they want to remove the symbol rate, the bandwidth better be compatible
> with that of CW (100 Hz or less) in the majority of the shared non-voice
> spectrum.
>
> As usual, the ARRL BOD has proven how little they know about amateur
> operation!
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
_________________
Topband Reflector
|