Dennis, I asked Dave Patton about this. We're seeing a few comments to that effect, but it's not something that can be readily addressed. At the present time, digital signals of any bandwidth can legally be used in that portion of the band. Under our proposal, only signals of 200 Hz bandwidth or less would be allowed. Since narrow digital signals (such as PSK31) pose no greater interference potential than CW signals and since it is relatively easy to dodge them (move 200 Hz one way or the other) the potential problem seems very small -- and in any case is considerably less than the potential problem posed by the status quo. The only other solution would be to abandon bandwidth regulation altogether in those segments and just label them "CW only." This doesn't seem like a step forward to me. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Bodson [mailto:bodsond@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:22 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11374] Re: October 12 update of the bandwidth petition comments Dave: There is one issue I don't see and that is many CW people want only CW in the lower 25kHz portion of each band. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 5:36 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11371] October 12 update of the bandwidth petition comments Approximately 530 responses containing comments (i.e., not including those that just asked questions) have been sent to the "bandwidth@arrl.org" email address and/or to Directors who in turn forwarded them to HQ. Dave Patton, NN1N, has tallied the responses as follows. Breakdown of responses by Division: Atlantic 31 Central 30 Dakota 7 Delta 20 Great Lakes 47 Hudson 15 Midwest 28 New England 40 Northwestern 49 Pacific 35 Roanoke 31 Rocky Mountain 17 Southeastern 41 Southwestern 35 West Gulf 46 Foreign 58 General topics (Dave's interpretations) and number of responses (total exceeds tallies above because some respondents listed multiple issues): Lack of sufficient Digital b/w on 10 MHz 168 "It ain't broke"/do nothing/withdraw petition 153 Overall OK, but... (each Winlink/30M comment can go here also, but is not included) 50 Digital interference with CW and phone 49 Nice work/support this 43 Restrict semi-auto stations to certain band segs 24 Too much catering to digital guys 24 This is overregulation 22 Too complicated/confusing 19 Disagree with eliminating automated stations 18 Not enough room for phone/SSB 13 Enforcement issues 13 222 and VHF/UHF weak signal protection 11 40 Meter issues 10 If AM gets 9 kHz then SSB gets 9 kHz 10 80 Meter issues 8 Band plans won't match DX 7 Get rid of AM 7 Use mode sub-banding instead 6 Wants narrow b/w segment on 160 M 5 Forces a speed limit on CW 5 Can't measure b/w 4 Digital b/w too small 4 Don't add modes on top of b/w 4 Create experimenters' areas 4 Let members vote and decide this 3 OOs and OO issues 3 Has problems w/ARRL and methods 3 Disagree w/no digi voice below 29 MHz 3 Move 29 MHz AM/FM lower in the band/QRM on 10 3 Disagree with 100 kHz wide b/w on 2 meters 3 Contradictory information in proposal 2 Disagree with continuous test emissions 2 "You haven't given us data" 2 RTTY issues 2 Wants just one b/w below 29 MHz 1 500 hz digital is too wide 1 SSTV issues 1 Use guard bands/channelize 1 97.309 wording 1 "The footnotes could disappear" 1 We will provide the Executive Committee with a list of issues and options for the October 16 meeting. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ