[SECC] 160m Band Plan
Allan and Bridget
dxcc@dbtech.net
Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:49:04 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C0B198.589CF2C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree that a CW-only plan is a good idea (especially given the nature =
of the band), and I also agree that split operations are not ideal =
during crowded band condx (such as during a contest), but you still have =
to deal with the non-contesters who share the band, as well as those who =
insist on QRMing those who would like to work a station and move on. =
Maybe all this talk will get us nowhere, but I think that at least we =
are being forced to rethink the ways things are done, and isn't it nice =
to be able to dream about the ideal?
As to Bill's comment regarding K5K, since I didn't do the contest =
wholeheartedly, I used the chance to work K5K on the non-contest mode =
and/or bands: CW on 160m, 80m, 20m, 10m, 12m, and 30m. I did work them =
on phone as well...on 17m. I was actually surprised to find that they =
had participated in the contest! ;-)
As to the band plan, I think this came out of frustration over the fact =
that most operators are finding it harder to work DX through local QRM. =
I didn't know that there was talk of refarming the band out to separate =
CW and phone...if we are to use both modes on this band then I kind of =
like the way it is...reminiscent of VHF and above operations. And now =
I'll shut up and let you guys continue the discussion...
73,
Bridget :0)
------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C0B198.589CF2C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>I agree that a CW-only plan =
is a good=20
idea (especially given the nature of the band), and I also agree that =
split=20
operations are not ideal during crowded band condx (such as during a =
contest),=20
but you still have to deal with the non-contesters who share the band, =
as well=20
as those who insist on QRMing those who would like to work a station and =
move=20
on. Maybe all this talk will get us nowhere, but I think that at =
least we=20
are being forced to rethink the ways things are done, and isn't it nice =
to be=20
able to dream about the ideal?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>As to Bill's comment =
regarding K5K, since=20
I didn't do the contest wholeheartedly, I used the chance to work =
K5K on=20
the non-contest mode and/or bands: CW on 160m, 80m, 20m, 10m, 12m, =
and=20
30m. I did work them on phone as well...on 17m. I was=20
actually surprised to find that they had participated in the =
contest! =20
;-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>As to the band plan, I think =
this came=20
out of frustration over the fact that most operators are finding it =
harder to=20
work DX through local QRM. I didn't know that there was talk of =
refarming=20
the band out to separate CW and phone...if we are to use both modes on =
this band=20
then I kind of like the way it is...reminiscent of VHF and above=20
operations. And now I'll shut up and let you guys continue the=20
discussion...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>73,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2>Bridget =
:0)</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C0B198.589CF2C0--
--
SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
Submissions: secc@contesting.com
Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com