Actually General Counsel Imlay's statement that “both components of our petition were necessary” is incorrect. A government-mandated bandwidth restriction is not necessary.
All of mankind's problems are not best solved by government regulation. In the absence of government intervention, the imagined potential-interference issues that some of our members appear to be concerned about will be solved by the realities of radio communication and the marketplace.
PACTOR IV vs PACTOR III
Realistically, the only current impact of eliminating the USA's symbol-rate limitation would be to allow US amateurs to use Pactor IV protocol data-transmission. Pactor IV permits transmission of data at 2 to 3 times the rate of the presently allowed Pactor III, using the same, or even slightly less bandwidth. Pactor III does satisfy the present symbol rate limitation, where Pactor IV does not.
There is no benefit to continuing the forcing of USA digital-mode amateurs to use the inefficient Pactor III mode. It takes more time to send data. Using a mode that uses less bandwidth and takes significantly less time will result in less interference, not more.
Pactor IV is currently used by amateurs in essentially all other countries. Amateur Radio survives.
IMAGINED WIDE-BANDWIDTH INTERFERENCE
Boogeyman-scenario wide-bandwidth modes that will destroy CW communication will not be used because they simply won't work effectively. Interference from CW signals will render such systems useless. For an example of this, note that Winlink systems are currently effectively shut down on active bands during weekends with big CW contests.
FCC DOESN'T LIMIT VOICE BANDWIDTH
The FCC places no bandwidth restriction on HF voice communication, other than the general requirement of 97.303a. Ninety-nine plus percent of amateur SSB communication uses a minimum of bandwidth. A handful of hi-fi hams use more, and life goes on. Another handful use AM, with a similar impact on ham radio's survival.
With this history, it is quite unlikely that the FCC will limit digital bandwidth.
BPL HISTORY
Government regulation did not prevent Broadband over Power Lines from destroying shortwave radio. BPL died because it was an inferior solution to connecting people to the web. The realities of radio communication and the marketplace killed it. Large-bandwidth HF digital systems that interfere with CW communication will not thrive either, because they are an inferior solution. They won't work. There is no need for government to ban them.
LEAVE THE FCC PROPOSAL ALONE
Both components of the League's petition were not necessary. The bandwidth-restriction part is unnecessary. There are better solutions to this issue than those proposed by the detailed-government-regulation-will-save-us advocates.
The FCC's proposal to eliminate the symbol-rate restriction is a good one. It allows immediate use of the efficient Pactor IV protocol, and it even permits wider-band experimentation, which might be practicable in regions where interference is not a problem, such as in Alaska during the day on 80-meters.
The rest of the world has used Pactor IV for years. Let's not overreact to Chicken Little wailing.
73,
Dick Norton, N6AA