[CQ-Contest] prejudicial language

[Bill Coleman]

On 8/24/01 6:26 PM, Jim Reisert at ad1c at yahoo.com wrote:

>Split operation helps in the case where there are regional allocation
>differences (either band plan or regulatory). 

That would apply to 160m.

>160m SSB would also benefit from such an arrangement if the US was 
>restricted,
>to say, above 1.850 and the rest of the world below, again keeping in mind 
>some
>sort of band plan (not regulation) that keeps SSB above, say, 1.820, to leave
>room for those who choose to operate 160 CW during an SSB contest.

Why do this to SSB? 

Here's an idea. If we assume (as those advocating mode segregation on 
160m):

* CW and SSB cannot cooperatively share the same bandwidth
* Split mode operation is superior for DX
* CW-exclusive regions are necessary to avoid encroachment from digital 
modes.

Here's the solution:

Declare 1950-2000 kHz CW EXCLUSIVE subband.

That way -

* CW transmissions are far away from other modes
* CW operators would be required to operate split for DX
* CW operators wouldn't have to worry about elbow room during the one 
weekend a year there's an SSB contest on 160m.





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