Topband: Re: 160 band plan

[Joe Craig]

Hi Bill. 

I didn't hear anthing from 5R/TI9/PW0 because of the SSB below 1843 which 
included several VE/VA/VY stations calling CQ.  I believe RAC (our
national organisation)  has a procedure in place to alert amateurs who 
may be unaware that they were operating outside the band plans and 
to politely request of them to follow the band plans in future.  I'll
forward the callsigns to RAC and hopefully this will result in better
compliance.

In the mean time, I am looking forward to seeing the revised band plan 
that Ken mentioned appearing on the RAC web page so that we can refer
to it when needed.

73 Joe VO1NA


On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Bill Tippett wrote:

> N1EU wrote:
> >Here in upstate New York, the VE2's and VE3's are "locals" and it would sure 
> >help make the bandplan succeed if the Canadian and US amateurs were on the 
> >same page.   
> 
>         Barry and all, this is a repeat of a post made January 24
> by Bob VE3KZ.    
> 
>                                                 73,  Bill  W4ZV
> 
> http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/topband/2002-January/014132.html      
> 
> N6RK wrote:
> >This all sounds good, but it seems to me
> >it just creates a VE phone band. Why should
> >we expect VE's to honor a voluntary band plan
> >on 160 when US stations won't?
> 
> Gentlemen
> 
> Just a little view from North of the Border from the Canadian Band Planning
> group. We have been watching with interest the changes in the ARRL and the
> possibility of FCC sub bands on 160. In the Fall I queried a fair selection
> of active Canadian Top Banders and the feeling was that in light of the ARRL
> plan they would like to make the Canadian Plan compatible with the new ARRL
> plan.
> 
> Since the Canadian plan is voluntary, there is still some possibility of
> what Rick is worried about but 160 is quite a different band in Canada from
> 80, 40 and 20 where we believe, for good reasons, that we need some separate
> phone space.  Maintaining national communications farther north, specially
> with declining CW, is a major national concern on those bands. This is not
> true on 160 where the activity is homogeneous with the US, and where there
> is plenty of phone room at the top of the band..
> 
> Our revisions to our 160m plan will be on the web shortly and will offer
> changes making it compatible as far as phone use is concerned.
> 
> 73 Bob VE3KZ
> ve3kz@rac.ca
> Chair: RAC HF Band Planning Committee
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Topband mailing list
> Topband@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
>