Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition

To: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>, <topband@contesting.com>,"Earl W Cunningham" <k6se@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL Bandwidth petition
From: "Ford Peterson" <ford@cmgate.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:23:30 -0500
List-post: <mailto:topband@contesting.com>
Tom wrote:

...SNIP...

> Of anyone in the USA, I would think the inland stations
> would most logically want split operation on 160 and 80 SSB.
> 
> 73 Tom

Your reasons and rationale are compelling.  

Perhaps my view is tainted by my own values, values not shared by others.  That 
value being that I personally hate the encroachment of government into the 
lives of reasonable people.  Maybe that's the problem.  For me to expect the 
general population to behave in a reasonable manner is in itself completely 
unreasonable.  If your mindset is 'a new law for every problem,' then segment, 
and create a new layer of problems.  If your mindset is to educate, appeal, and 
penalize bad behavior outside the jurisdiction of the court system, then leave 
it as is, but begin to educate, appeal, and penalize bad behavior.

As a resident of the depths of the black hole, 160M EU propagation is simply 
not viable except under extremely unusual conditions.  ESP QSOs are the 
norm--and then only on CW.  Only during contest situations and needing 'a new 
one for the log' is the notion of EU to Zeroland of any importance.  Outside of 
these rather 'special needs' conditions, I would not choose to talk to our 
friend Wolf via 160M SSB.  I would talk to him on 20M and it would be an 
enjoyable Q with arm chair copy.

Perhaps if a proposal could be put forth that would clearly outline what you 
are advocating, (a proposal describing bandwidths instead of modes) then a more 
thorough discussion would be in order.  My bet is the ARRL runs from 160M 
segmentation debates because they do not understand it, or because the 
membership is deeply split on the topic.  I assure you, the FCC has exactly 
zero interest in setting up new fences that need constant mending.  Enforcement 
would continue to be a problem anyway.  Until a reasonable proposal can be put 
forth, any criticism of the ARRL for failing to do so would be in-and-of-itself 
unreasonable.

So you are advocating the ARRL parse 80M-75M differently than is proposed?

Ford-N0FP
ford@cmgate.com


_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>