|[AMRadio] Re: IARU bandplan|
w5jo at brightok.net
Sun Oct 14 21:03:40 EDT 2007
I do hope they, at the very least, get input from other than vested
interests. It appears that was all they had for the first one.
Honestly, I don't see the need for regulation by bandwidth at all since
it would lock experimenters into fixed amounts of spectrum. Remember
when Spread Spectrum made it debut on the Amateur bands? It could not
be used until a RM was passed to allow it. That put Amateurs well
behind the curve. That was my primary and most important reason for
opposing RM - 11306.
I do believe that, given the opportunity, Amateurs can find new ways to
communicate using technology adapted that would allow signals of large
or small bandwidth without massive interference. At present the
appearance is that the ARRL will only promote new technology that is
proprietary and does very little for the experimenter except on the
bands above 900 Mcy. To me, this is the wrong approach. One has but to
look at the pages of QST to see what is going on at the basic level and
it sure isn't experimentation.
Today's Amateurs should be encouraged to learn enough to plan and
construct new technology for the HF/MF bands as well as the frequencies
above 900. Additionally, they could continue to use the bands as they
please depending on conditions no matter the mode.
> I suspect that sometime in 2008, we'll see
> another proposal being submitted to the FCC that will build on the
> band plans but will be tailored and adjusted more specifically to U.
> amateur interests. Given that the ARRL now has a wealth of feedback
> the RM-11306 proposal, they will hopefully not try to repeat the same
> mistakes they made the first time.
> Pete, wa2cwa
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 15 Dec 2017.