Dave: The principal purpose of this action is to take care of wide bandwidth data modes in CW areas. I believe that Paul and Chris can accomplish this. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 1:53 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7663] Re: subband bandwidths One reason for sensitivity on this issue is that in Docket 20777 back in 1976 the answer was very nearly "yes." The maximum bandwidth proposed by the FCC for amateur stations operating below 28.5 MHz (at the time, the lower edge of the phone band) was 3.5 kHz. The maximum bandwidth below 1215 MHz was to be 35 kHz, which would have outlawed fast-scan TV on 420 MHz. (There was no 902 MHz band in those days.) Both the AM and the ATV communities got up in arms. The ARRL position on Docket 20777 was adopted at the July 1976 Board Meeting. We supported double-sideband AM if confined to a nominal bandwidth of 6 kHz, subject to review in 5 years. We opposed eliminating fast-scan TV from the 420-MHz band but supported confining it to two 4-MHz channels, again subject to review after 5 years. Each of these positions was reasonable but neither was regarded by the affected interest groups as being the ringing endorsement of their mode that they felt they deserved from the ARRL. In the face of strong opposition, the FCC did not follow through on the idea of regulating generally by bandwidth but used Docket 20777 as the vehicle for authorizing ASCII. Saying that we will petition at some indeterminate future time to regulate by bandwidth rather than by mode seems to me to be a statement of principle. Minute 64 is silent on the question of what bandwidths would be permitted where. Without more details I don't see how Chris could craft a rulemaking petition. Saying that we want to regulate by bandwidth but don't want anything to change for the existing modes won't compute; for example, at the present time RTTY and data emissions are not authorized in the HF "phone bands" but CW is. Writing a regulation based on bandwidth to preserve that condition would be challenging even for Chris. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 10:44 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7661] Re: subband bandwidths At 10:11 AM 8/14/2002 -0400, Gary/KI4LA wrote:

...

64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode.

I am being kindly lobbied over Minute 64. Will this have the effect of killing AM on the bands or not?

No. Not the intention or plan, that'd be suicide.... Guess someone in the AM community needs a villain

We currently have subbands regulated by mode within the FCC rules. For example, on 20m you can not use voice (SSB + AM), or image (SSTV + FAX) below 14.150. The change would be for the FCC to rephrase the rules so that they didn't specify mode (voice/image) but simply state that wide bandwidth signals should be above 14.150 and narrow band signals below. It's actually a simplification of the regulations and moves us towards the time when all (most) signals will digital.

The origin of this, on my part, was the Technology Task Force and some discussions about digital voice (and Clover 2000 and Pactor 3) and FCC regulations. Paul Rinaldo circulated a white paper with some discussion on it (green cover sheet I think) at the January Board meeting.

-- Tom. ===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444