Hi Bob...interesting proposal! I think the license class subbands would be a
good idea. But why should the CW allocation on 160 be proportionately less
than it is on higher bands? On 80 and 40 meters, 50% of the band is for CW;
42% on 20m and 44% for 15m.
1840 and down for CW is only 20% of the band. I think making it CW-only from
1800-1860 kHz would better allow for the continued increase in activity we
can expect, and allow more room for split DX phone operation and digital modes.
73/Jon AA1K
12:05 PM 3/9/97 gmt, you wrote:
>I agree with John, Cw segment 1840 and below with the typical
>allocation for license classes as well both cw and ssb....
>
>1800-1825 extra/cw only
>1825-1840 general/advanced/extra cw only
>1840-1850 extra/ssb/cw
>1850-1860 extra/advanced/ssb/cw
>1860-2000 general/advanced/extra/ssb/cw
>
>Looks like to me like this would resolve two problems at once!
>
>vy 73 to all!
>Bob NW6N
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
>Submissions: topband@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
>Sponsored by: Akorn Access, Inc. & N4VJ / K4AAA
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
Sponsored by: Akorn Access, Inc. & N4VJ / K4AAA
|