[CQ-Contest] prejudicial language

[Bill Coleman]

On 8/18/01 9:27 PM, Roger Parsons at ve3zi at hotmail.com wrote:


>You actually make my point when you say that during CQWW SSB the band was 
>full of contest stations up as far as 1950. There's another 50kHz beyond 
>that, which could be used for NA QSOs and which could leave the bottom part 
>free for CW.

Why don't the CW operators move into the unpopulated 50 kHz? Why is it 
assumed that the larger number of SSB operators are the ones who have to 
moved.

>I made an input to the ARRL group about bandplanning. My proposal was that 
>1800-1830 should be exclusively CW at all times, with the exception that 
>1810-1815 should be available for digital modes. That would have allowed 
>intercontinental CW or SSB contacts with just about every country and would 
>have split the 'DX' part between CW and SSB. 

I think a "fence" between digital and analog modes at 1830 is the 
fairest, since it permits 20 kHz of simplex DX operation for either type 
of mode.

I disagree with exclusive CW segments. Digital operations are growing, 
and will need much more than 5 kHz. I would encourage digital operations 
to hug the lowest portions of the band, however. I think the existing 
ARRL bandplan is in line with this.

Of course, there's always the possibility of making 1950-2000 kHz 
exclusively CW.... <grin>



Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
            -- Wilbur Wright, 1901


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com