Robert A. Kile wrote:
> It is my contention that further subdividing any of our frequency bands
> by mode or class of license unless fully utilized is a gross mistake.
> (Excepting satellite subbands)
Hi Bob,
Your response is a carbon copy of the response the ARRL gave me in the
70's when I petetioned to have 160 divided into CW and phone areas.
The ARRL's excuses were identical to yours, even though it was almost 20
years ago. The only new addition is the satellite stuff.
When I communicated with the FCC, they plainly indicted a sub-band was
"no problem". Prose Walker felt like it was a great idea. They actually
felt it would cause a relief of burden of handing calls of splattering
AM and SSB stations near the DX areas, and less complaints about
jamming. The FCC plainly said they would approve it in a minute with the
ARRL's support. The ARRL killed it with "excuses", NOT the FCC.
While the ARRL endorses CW only segments for ALL the other bands,
including new bands, 160 is left the orphan. SSB Contesters are allowed
to ruin the entire "CW area" of the band during contests, SSB stations
are allowed to park wherever they like during moring coffee sessions,
and even our famous big gun DXers just pile right on top existing CW
QSO's to work a common VK,ZL,G or VP9 on SSB.
160 has needed a CW band since the beginning, and not for contesters,
DXers or ragchewers. It needs a CW segment because people are people,
and they are all inconsiderate of others. When SSB and CW tangle, the
SSB station generally wins. Even VHF bands have CW only areas.
A CW sub-band is long past due.
73 Tom
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
|