Topband: Sub-bands Needed on 160m

[Bill Tippett]

Hello all!

K6SE wrote:

>I suggest that you pressure the ARRL to petition the FCC to make the 1800
>to 1850 kHz segment of 160-meters a CW-only sub-band.  There's plenty of
>room above 1850 kHz for the other modes.

WA6WZO (ARRL's Southwestern Division Director) replied:

>IMHO, there is little chance to currently convince the FCC for any kind
>of new CW Subband since 1) the League was turned down in our request for
>some changes in the HF subbands as part of restructuring, 2) there is a
>slow decline in the interest of CW, and 3) a general climate of
>deregulation thinking.  Nevertheless, I have copied your message to
>Director Tom Frenaye (K1KI).  He is active on 160 meters and he may be
>more encouraging.  Meanwhile, when I see the other directors in a couple
>of weeks, I will see what their thinking is about your request.
>
>Additionally, you may want to start the ball rolling by submitting a
>petition to the FCC on your own.  One final thought, if we could get the
>FCC to better support our bandplans, that would be the best of all
>worlds.

        I have put several posts on this subject on hold until some of
us could put together a plan of attack on the issue.  I believe need a
two-pronged approach consisting of:

1.  Continued pressure on ARRL Directors that the current voluntary
band plan is not working and that a narrowband sub-band (including CW and
digital) IS necessary just as we have on EVERY other amateur band.

2.  An open discussion by everyone interested leading to an FCC petition.
We will need to base this petition on the technical need for a separate
sub-band on 160 for narrowband modes and NOT on the relative merits of 
CW vs SSB, DX vs ragchewing, contesters vs noncontesters, CW vs digital,
etc.

        It is important that we do two things...1. Write your Directors
and...2. Encourage wide participation by all in the process leading to
a petition.  For the latter reason, it is very likely that we may generate
massive input (based on the last time we addressed this issue in Feb/Mar
1997) that may be of primary interest only to USA subscribers.  Since one
of the things I value about the Topband reflector is our very high overseas
participation, and since not all of those subscribers may be interested in
what is primarily a USA issue, I propose that we move this discussion to
the 160 reflector at qth.net.  Those that are interested can then go there
without burdening the reflector here.

        You can either sign up for the E-mail version at http://www.QTH.net/
(normal list or digested versions are available) or read the Web archive
page at http://www.qth.net/archive/160m/160m.html if you don't want all the
E-mail.  In any event we will also post periodic summaries here on Topband
to encourage more input to the process (but on the qth.net reflector).

        One final word of advice.  It would be very easy for us to use this
as an opportunity to "bash" ARRL.  However, several of us feel we may
eventually need at least some endorsement by ARRL for this to succeed.  
Please keep in mind that we want to focus on what should be done and not
worry about past history.  Please let your comments be civil, rational and
in keeping with "The Gentleman's Band."  Let's all make our best effort to
create a narrowband segment for the Topband just as we have on every other
band.

                                                73,  Bill  W4ZV

P.S.  To start things off, I'm posting a copy of this along with all
posts received previously on 160m@qth.net.  This post will be the last 
on Topband until we are ready to post a summary (please do not cross-
post your responses to both reflectors!)


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/topband
Submissions:              topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-topband@contesting.com