Topband: 160 Meters and ARRL

[Tod - ID]

Just what is it that you think you/we want? (USA readers). 

I am quite comfortable about going to my Director and suggesting things, but
I don't see there is a specific list from which to select items for which to
lobby.

Tom's original complaint was worded as shown at the end of this message. The
two ideas I found in it were:

(1) A narrow mode segment 

--not sure exactly what is meant by that. I might guess that this would be a
request for specific sub band frequency allocations for CW such as is found
on the higher frequency HF bands. The ARRL Committee charged with reviewing
the 160 meter band plan discussed this, and the ARRL Board decided it did
not wish to propose that the FCC create specific sub bands. It seems to me
that ARRL did address this although maybe not with a result that some of the
readers on the Topband Reflector wanted.

(2). "...160 could be fully returned to amateurs if there was any push at
all. ..."


I confess I simply don't know what the issue is here. I do know that Prose
is dead and the FCC seems to have changed its "style" a great deal since the
1970's. Whatever might have been written then is long since a "no op". Maybe
someone else has a better understanding of these two items (and perhaps some
others that folks think needed attention). I would like to read about them.

It was my guess that in its recent action the ARRL Board was focusing on
reducing the total number of license classes to three and not trying to
'redo' the band plans. The "refarming" of the Novice frequencies is a
logical topic to discuss in that context. I don't see that changes to 160
meters would be a part of such a discussion.

Tod, KØTO


************************* The basic text from W8JI's original message on
this topic is below *******

> Despite a majority support for a narrow mode segment on 160 in the 
> recent RM petition, the ARRL asked for re-farming of other bands and 
> true to form ignored 160. At least that is what E-Ham reports in an ARRL
release.
>
> http://www.eham.net/articles/7475
>
> Why the ARRL constantly ignores 160 is beyond me. In the 70's, Prose 
> Walker told W2EQS and myself in written correspondence that 160 could 
> be fully returned to amateurs if there was any push at all. Needless 
> to say there wasn't any effort.
>
> I wonder what it takes to get the attention of the people in an Ivory
Tower?
> Will they ever show any concern for 160 meters?
>