[CQ-Contest] Relief for 40M in sight?

[Pete Smith]

I think you mistake my intentions, Dean - I was just asking why 40 couldn't 
be more like 20, with RTTY starting around ~7070, now that there is much 
more spectrum above it.  "Intimidate"?  Give me a break!

73, Pete

At 11:58 AM 3/20/2009, N6DE wrote:
>Hi Pete, for what reason would peer pressure be applied?  For RTTY
>stations operating within their own band plans?
>
>The JA band plan for 40m RTTY is 7025-7045.
>
>The key here is band cohabitation.  Trying to publicly intimidate
>stations operating RTTY or SSB to not operate within their own band
>plans is not going to be a successful tactic.  It will, however, be
>successful at starting a flame war.  We already have too much of that
>on cq-contest.
>
>The only time there's a problem is when a digital station calls CQ on
>top of me as a CW station.  And when a CW station calls CQ right on
>top of me as a RTTY station.  I regularly operate CW, RTTY, and SSB,
>and my experience has consistently been that CW stations transmit on
>top of me operating RTTY much more than RTTY stations transmit on top
>of me as a CW operator.  (and the radio's filter used was the same
>between modes - 250Hz or 500Hz)  These offending CW stations tarnish
>things for the rest of us CW operators who don't intentionally
>interfere with other modes and can coexist peacefully in the same band
>segment.
>
>73...
>-Dean - N6DE
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Which is pretty disappointing, with digital modes starting at 7040, while
>on 20, for example, they do not begin until 14070.  I'm also not thrilled
>to see unattended digital data devices at 7050-53, and SSB down to 7060.  I
>guess we'll have to rely on peer pressure to get some relief, at least
>until 7200-7300 reverts to amateur use (in ?).
>
>73, Pete N4ZR