firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Coleman AA4LR) WROTE:
>Why don't we just eliminate the mode subbands entirely? That way, there
>would be enough space for whatever type of operation you wanted to do (at
>least, to the limit of the allocation). We'd probably still segregate voice
>(analog) operating to the high end, with digital modes toward the low end
>-- but we could be more flexible.
>Besides, that way we could work DX on 40m phone without having to work split.
40 meters is a good example of what this type of band would sound like. Now
that the mexicans have moved their SSB rag chew nets to the bottom 25 khz of
what was once the 40M CW portion of the band that has become almost unusable
for any mode. The mexicans on the other hand feel like they have been driven
out of the dx phone band by the HF packet guys taking over 7050 to 7100. 7000
to 7350 is the most abused piece of spectrum on the planet is is certainly the
best example of what a no band plan band would sound like. If the future WARC
summit meeting does nothing but starighten this out (globally) it will have
been a monumental success.
AS for contest free zones, I agree with who eversaid it earlier..thats what I
thought 17 Meters was for...I'm surpirsed the Slow Scan TV and Traffic Net
Guys havent figured this one out yet....on second thought I guess I'm not that
surprised ;-0 !!!
"If the opposite of "PRO" is "CON"
then doesn't it stand to reason that
the opposite of "PROGRESS" is "CONGRSS"?
>From Esteban J. Morao" <email@example.com Tue Aug 29 00:54:08 1995
From: Esteban J. Morao" <firstname.lastname@example.org (Esteban J. Morao)
Subject: CQ WW, The Internet and Packet?
I was wouder, if is legal during CQ WW to use a internet connection to connect
to a packet cluster and rx spots?
Can this be consider under ASSISTED cat?
Please e-mail me direct, and I will post a summary later
73 de Steve W4/YV5DTA