I agree Dave. W8JI, W4ZV, and K1ZM not withstanding... there are about
.0000000000000000000000000000000001% of hams affected by the CQ 160 SSB
contest or the NAQP SSB contest. Are there others that affect these 160
DXers? I don't think so. So ZV is jumping up and down a lot screaming
and yelling, but the bottom line is that the current situation isn't
broken for most of us.
73
Bill
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, David L. Thompson wrote:
> I have filed comments with the FCC in opposition to any formal segmentation
> on 160 at this time. A better approach is to get
> IARU to get 1800 to 1900 Khz as a world wide band so we can implement the
> ARRL and IARU volunteer plans. The problem is that
> much of the world does not have all the frequencies we in the US and Canada
> have access to...with many limited to 1830 to 1850
> or some other allocation for all modes CW, SSB, Digital etc. If we force
> much of the DX to work spit then we run into the problems
> that we have on 75 and 40 with complaints to the FCC about interference to
> existing QSOs. I have talked to Riley on e-mail and he agrees
> and does not feel that the FCC will further segment the bands. Wally, LZ2CJ
> tells me that 1840 to 1860 is full of loud UB and UA stations
> each weekend that are NOT in the contest so this portion is useless in
> Europe. He can operate 1870 so that is where he and the EU stations that
> can operate SSB in contests.
>
> I also talked to the new FCC Chairman recently and his first question was
> why don't hams work the new (more efficient...his words)
> modes such as digital PSK31 and now digital voice? His feedback is that
> PSK31 is far better than CW for weak signal and SSB is not even in the
> ballpark! He told the group I was in that if amateur radio is to survive
> with the existing frequencies (especially the UHF ones) we must start using
> new modes. Amateur radio was the leader in SSB, packet and effective moon
> bounce in the past.
>
> Rod, W6ROD, did some legwork on my idea for a world wide band on 160 in
> the lower 100Khz and told me there was little support right now as their
> main interest (at least thru 2003) was 40 meters.
>
> I told the FCC I support the ARRL plan and that except for 2 or 3 weekends
> each year the band plan woks. I am disgusted as anyone at the Mexicans and
> Florida stations that have moved to 1812 and 1830 recently.
>
> 73 Dave K4JRB
>
>
>
> --
> SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
> Submissions: secc@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
>
--
SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
Submissions: secc@contesting.com
Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
|