I agree, Al.
A bandplan, to me, is a lot like handicapped parking. Nothing is more
frustrating than driving around a small parking lot over and over trying to
find a place (and eventually parking illegally along a curb) because I don't
want to offend anyone by using one of several empty handicap spaces. My old
local post office was like this. Is it better that I park in a fire zone
rather than an unoccupied handicap spot?
When the lot is fairly empty, the dedicated spaces make sense - as do band
plans. When at capacity, they do not.
Blindly following bandplans during a contest is the equivalent of advocating
contest free zones. It is telling someone (those supposedly protected by
the plan) that their transmissions are more sacred than the contesters'.
40 meters is a disaster. Everyone knows it. The bandplan is an attempt to
smooth out some of the rough spots. It's not a "solution" - only fixing the
overall frequency allocations of 40m can come close to that.
73 Mike N2MG
Al wrote:
> The so called "band plan of no SSB below 7040 KHz" has nothing about CW
> above 7040. Why do people need to operate CW above 7040 KHz in CQWW CW?
> Duh, because there are no clear frequencies. Why do people transmit
> SSB below 7040 KHz? Same reason.
> How many SSB contests a year create problems on 40 meters? ARRL phone,
> CQWPX, CQWW is about it. Three weekends a year, twice in March, once in
> October. This is a problem ?
> Sometimes the solution of wall to wall SSB stations from 7040 to 7100
> is not to add another element to the 40 meter beam or another KW to the
> amplifier, but merely to find a clear frequency.
|