[CQ-Contest] prejudicial language

[Roger Parsons]

Bill

I made the point that the upper 50kHz of the band could be used for inter NA 
contacts. It could not be used for intercontinental contacts.

The internationally agreed IARU band plans show the lower part of 160m as 
exclusively CW and the upper part for mixed mode. That is why the SSB 
operators should fill the phone part of the band before encroaching on the 
CW part.

You may, or may not, be correct about digital modes. The ARRL proposal could 
allow the space allocated to these modes to expand at the expense of CW if 
the relative international popularity of these modes warranted this. At the 
moment however, CW is vastly more popular on 160m than any digimode.

It is fairly unlikely that many countries will expand their amateur 
allocations on 160m in the near future. I suggested a split at 1830 because 
there would be some possibility of adherence to the bandplan.

73 Roger
VE3ZI/G3RBP


>From: Bill Coleman <aa4lr at arrl.net>
>To: "Roger Parsons" <ve3zi at hotmail.com>,        "David Thompson" 
><thompson at mindspring.com>
>CC: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] prejudicial language
>Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:04:17 -0400
>
>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
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


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