[CQ-Contest] A US Petition to remove CW only subbands

[Matthew Stevens]

So, right, adding 100 kHz will really motivate all the people who don't already use the other 3.9 MHz.

I read land legal descriptions and deeds every day for my job, and I got bogged down trying to decipher what his meaning and intent really was with this thing. Hopefully the FCC will get enough negative responses that they won't seriously consider his proposal. Seems like a lot of language changes to the rules, just to basically leave things the way they already are.

- Matthew KK4FEM

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 13, 2016, at 20:29, Michael Adams <mda at n1en.org> wrote:
> 
> In a followup filing, he explains that opening up the bottom of 2m and 6m to digital...er, "symbol communications" would somehow stimulate the use of those bands.
> 
> Oh, and the narrative of the proposal, if I follow it correctly, would restrict CW in the phone subbands to hand-keyed code only, which would throw a bit of a wrench into the occasional discussion we have about ways to get phone spots into RBN.
> 
> -- 
> Michael Adams | mda at n1en.org
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Matthew Stevens
> Sent: Friday, 13 May, 2016 16:48
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A US Petition to remove CW only subbands
> 
> Am I missing something? Where are these "CW only subbands?" (other than the bottom of 6m and 2m?)
> 
> 
> - Matthew
> ​ KK4FEM​
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest