[RTTY] Contest QRMing of other digimodes (ARRL BOD)

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Receipt of the report of the Ad Hoc HF Band Planning Committee is
Docket item 22 on the Consent Agenda.  However, as noted in the
Board's Agenda: "Receipt of a report does not include approval of any 
recommendations contained in the report. Consideration of such 
recommendations comes later on in the agenda."

I would certainly hope that The Board would have sense enough to
publish any recommendation by the Ad Hoc HF Band Planning Committee
for general membership comment and potential modification *before*
taking action to adopt any plan developed in secret (notwithstanding
a short window for comments at the outset of the process).

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2015-01-07 5:41 PM, Mark n2qt wrote:
> As an aside, the upcoming ARRL BoD meeting starts Jan 16.  It has on the agenda
> the Report from the Ad Hoc HF Band Plan committee.  As you probably know this was
> created in response to the unhappiness expressed after the preemptory release of
> RM-11708.  There may well also be discussion over the BoD comments related to new
> Technician class digital mode privileges.
>
> These reports are often covered under the Consent Agenda which means they may not
> be disclosed in the resulting minutes if no action is taken.  So we may not know what was
> reported or what possible direction the board may be considering.
>
> I hope everyone has previously expressed their opinions to the Band Plan Committee. I also
> am hopeful that we may learn what the committee has concluded.
>
> I intend to ask my director for transparency on these topics.
>
> Mark. N2QT
>
>>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Peter Laws <plaws0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Dave Barr <recordupe at verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, there has been operation close to the upper limits, but never without
>>> very wide gaps below those top qrgs.   Very easy to avoid psk and jt's
>>> without compromising room to operate.
>>>
>>> It would be very interesting to see a list of what frequencies the top
>>> scorers run on, as well as a frequency distribution chart incorporating data
>>> from all contest logs that do report actual qso qrgs.
>>
>>
>> I only have a 10 m dipole up right now (and a WARC trap dipole that I
>> probably could have loaded ..) so I was only on that band.  Cabrillo
>> rounds your frequency so there is, in reality, more variation than
>> shows here, but regardless ... when I wasn't running on 28111.75 (yes,
>> that's why I chose it) I never heard anyone much higher than 28117.
>> Well, no one I could work.  Yep, there's still another 183 kHz, but
>> ain't no body there.  So you can make the argument, in fact I will,
>> that the other modes have plenty of room to spread out but don't.
>>
>>
>>
>> done
>> 28080 MHz: 2
>> 28081 MHz: 3
>> 28082 MHz: 2
>> 28083 MHz: 2
>> 28084 MHz: 2
>> 28085 MHz: 2
>> 28086 MHz: 2
>> 28087 MHz: 2
>> 28088 MHz: 3
>> 28089 MHz: 42
>> 28090 MHz: 1
>> 28091 MHz: 2
>> 28092 MHz: 6
>> 28093 MHz: 1
>> 28094 MHz: 2
>> 28095 MHz: 3
>> 28096 MHz: 1
>> 28097 MHz: 3
>> 28098 MHz: 1
>> 28099 MHz: 2
>> 28100 MHz: 1
>> 28103 MHz: 3
>> 28104 MHz: 2
>> 28105 MHz: 1
>> 28107 MHz: 1
>> 28108 MHz: 1
>> 28110 MHz: 2
>> 28111 MHz: 6
>> 28112 MHz: 158
>> 28113 MHz: 1
>> 28114 MHz: 1
>> 28117 MHz: 1
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>