Jim Kearman wrote:
>I'm pretty skeptical about voluntary bandplans. They work more or less on 160,
>due to relatively low occupancy, and the enduring culture on topband. As the
>wall-to-wall SSB on 40 during the last CQWW SSB test showed, they don't stand
>a prayer on other bands. International regulation by bandwidth would prevent
>that, if the U.S. can convince ITU to go along.
>
>
Essentially it means that there will be no space for any mode but SSB
activity (and pactor 3). bleh That sucks with multiple vortices.
It's bad enough that SSB wider than 1.8kHz has become vogue but filling
the entire band with it is nonsense. It will not pave the way for new
digital mode activity. There's acres of open space from 14.100 to
14.150 yet I challenge anyone to find competition for free space for any
digital mode in that slice of the band. And there's not that many of
our Canadian friends there on SSB either.
And during the past few days' golden topband conditions I still don't
find much elbow rubbing and competition for open space so I'm puzzled
how regulating 160 would do anything useful. More unnecessary
governmental regulation - is someone in the Senate pushing this?
I've never figured out how someone can separate "controlled chaos" from
"uncontrolled chaos" - the end result is the same.
--
73 Jason N1SU
Jason Buchanan - Boxboro, MA
Website: http://n1su.com/
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|