N1EU wrote:
>Here in upstate New York, the VE2's and VE3's are "locals" and it would sure
>help make the bandplan succeed if the Canadian and US amateurs were on the
>same page.
Barry and all, this is a repeat of a post made January 24
by Bob VE3KZ.
73, Bill W4ZV
http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/topband/2002-January/014132.html
N6RK wrote:
>This all sounds good, but it seems to me
>it just creates a VE phone band. Why should
>we expect VE's to honor a voluntary band plan
>on 160 when US stations won't?
Gentlemen
Just a little view from North of the Border from the Canadian Band Planning
group. We have been watching with interest the changes in the ARRL and the
possibility of FCC sub bands on 160. In the Fall I queried a fair selection
of active Canadian Top Banders and the feeling was that in light of the ARRL
plan they would like to make the Canadian Plan compatible with the new ARRL
plan.
Since the Canadian plan is voluntary, there is still some possibility of
what Rick is worried about but 160 is quite a different band in Canada from
80, 40 and 20 where we believe, for good reasons, that we need some separate
phone space. Maintaining national communications farther north, specially
with declining CW, is a major national concern on those bands. This is not
true on 160 where the activity is homogeneous with the US, and where there
is plenty of phone room at the top of the band..
Our revisions to our 160m plan will be on the web shortly and will offer
changes making it compatible as far as phone use is concerned.
73 Bob VE3KZ
ve3kz@rac.ca
Chair: RAC HF Band Planning Committee
|