Receipt of the report of the Ad Hoc HF Band Planning Committee is
Docket item 22 on the Consent Agenda. However, as noted in the
Board's Agenda: "Receipt of a report does not include approval of any
recommendations contained in the report. Consideration of such
recommendations comes later on in the agenda."
I would certainly hope that The Board would have sense enough to
publish any recommendation by the Ad Hoc HF Band Planning Committee
for general membership comment and potential modification *before*
taking action to adopt any plan developed in secret (notwithstanding
a short window for comments at the outset of the process).
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 2015-01-07 5:41 PM, Mark n2qt wrote:
As an aside, the upcoming ARRL BoD meeting starts Jan 16. It has on the agenda
the Report from the Ad Hoc HF Band Plan committee. As you probably know this
was
created in response to the unhappiness expressed after the preemptory release of
RM-11708. There may well also be discussion over the BoD comments related to
new
Technician class digital mode privileges.
These reports are often covered under the Consent Agenda which means they may
not
be disclosed in the resulting minutes if no action is taken. So we may not
know what was
reported or what possible direction the board may be considering.
I hope everyone has previously expressed their opinions to the Band Plan
Committee. I also
am hopeful that we may learn what the committee has concluded.
I intend to ask my director for transparency on these topics.
Mark. N2QT
On Jan 7, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Dave Barr <recordupe@verizon.net> wrote:
Yes, there has been operation close to the upper limits, but never without
very wide gaps below those top qrgs. Very easy to avoid psk and jt's
without compromising room to operate.
It would be very interesting to see a list of what frequencies the top
scorers run on, as well as a frequency distribution chart incorporating data
from all contest logs that do report actual qso qrgs.
I only have a 10 m dipole up right now (and a WARC trap dipole that I
probably could have loaded ..) so I was only on that band. Cabrillo
rounds your frequency so there is, in reality, more variation than
shows here, but regardless ... when I wasn't running on 28111.75 (yes,
that's why I chose it) I never heard anyone much higher than 28117.
Well, no one I could work. Yep, there's still another 183 kHz, but
ain't no body there. So you can make the argument, in fact I will,
that the other modes have plenty of room to spread out but don't.
done
28080 MHz: 2
28081 MHz: 3
28082 MHz: 2
28083 MHz: 2
28084 MHz: 2
28085 MHz: 2
28086 MHz: 2
28087 MHz: 2
28088 MHz: 3
28089 MHz: 42
28090 MHz: 1
28091 MHz: 2
28092 MHz: 6
28093 MHz: 1
28094 MHz: 2
28095 MHz: 3
28096 MHz: 1
28097 MHz: 3
28098 MHz: 1
28099 MHz: 2
28100 MHz: 1
28103 MHz: 3
28104 MHz: 2
28105 MHz: 1
28107 MHz: 1
28108 MHz: 1
28110 MHz: 2
28111 MHz: 6
28112 MHz: 158
28113 MHz: 1
28114 MHz: 1
28117 MHz: 1
--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|