[RTTY] 160 Band Plan/RTTY On 160

[Thomas Giella KN4LF]

Bill the boat on this thread sailed about two weeks ago and I doubt that 
anyone on this e-list wants to hear anything further about it.

As far as I'm concerned no good deed goes unpunished, so I will never again 
be an advocate for anything in the ham radio hobby. If the majority are 
happy being trampled on by a minority special interest group then so be it.

--... ...--,
Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
Lakeland, FL, USA
Grid Square EL97AW
kn4lf at arrl.net

KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com
KN4LF 160 Meter Propagation Theory Notes: http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm
Man Induced Climate Change Refuted:http://www.kn4lf.com/globalwarminglie.htm

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Coleman" <aa4lr at arrl.net>
To: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <flcyclone at tampabay.rr.com>
Cc: "a RTTY COL eList" <rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] 160 Band Plan/RTTY On 160


>
> On Mar 2, 2006, at 11:11 AM, Thomas Giella KN4LF wrote:
>
>> As far as 160 meter band plans the CW mode only on 160 meters DX
>> community attempted to have the Gentleman's Agreement 1830-1835 kc
>> CW and 1840-1850 SSB DX windows reaffirmed in 2001 via the ARRL 160
>> Meter Ad Hoc Committee. However in the end that didn't happen so
>> there is now no official DX windows on 160 meters.
>
> While there is no DX window in the bandplan, there certainly is a lot
> of DX CW activity in the region from 1820-1835 kHz.
>
>> The alleged powerful politics people consist of a very small group
>> of 1 x 2 callsign hams with gigantic runaway egos that insist that
>> they are omniscient by virtue of their license class, ARRL DXCC
>> entity totals and electrical engineering backgrounds, anal
>> retentives! They have repeatedly attempted to create their own
>> private playground gated community on 160 meters but fortunately
>> have failed in every attempt.
>
> I think that's way over the top.
>
> The biggest problem with 160m is that it is has a very restricted
> frequency range worldwide, with only 40 kHz in common with most all
> countries of the world. If you want to work many DX stations, you'd
> have to be in this range.
>
> The main difficulty with the proposals for mode segregation is that
> they placed this critical 40 kHz solely in the CW portion of the band.
>
> On the other hand, the guys who are seriously pursuing 160m DX are
> mainly CW operators, primarily because of the S/N advantage CW has
> with its narrow bandwidths. Nearby high power signals or transmitter
> byproducts can greatly hamper trying to dig out those weak signals.
>
>> This group was behind the pressure placed upon W1AW to QSY off of
>> 1817.500 kc.
>
> I still think that moving W1AW's broadcasts off 1817.5 is a good
> idea. In fact, I wonder why they didn't do that a long time ago.
>
> Moving it down to 1807.5 seems like the wrong thing -- that would
> interfere with digital operations on that end of the band. Why not
> move it up to 1900 kHz or so? Or even higher? That end of the band is
> way underused.
>
>> I notice the 160 meter bandplan does not even mention any DX window
>> at all.
>
> Nope. But you certainly won't win many friends by holding domestic
> QSOs in the historic area of the window.
>
>> Between this glaring omission and the 40 meter RTTY DX
>> calling frequency fiasco, one can only wonder what's going on at
>> headquarters.
>
> The RTTY calling frequency has ALWAYS been 7040. That's where it
> should be to work DX. That's in harmony with the existing Region 1
> and 3 bandplans.
>
> When 40m expands to 7000-7200 kHz in 2009 in regions 1 and 3, the
> RTTY calling frequency can be moved higher up in the band, much to
> the relief of QRP CW operators on 7040.
>
> Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
> Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
>             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 3/13/2006
>
> 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 3/13/2006