On 2/25/02 7:27 PM, Ron Hooper at AB4RU@aol.com wrote:
>Do we push for the FCC to adopt the existing ARRL band plan?
Sorta late for that, Ron. The comment period has closed, and the FCC has
yet to come out with a report and order on the issue.
I suppose there might be an opening for reply comments (but this would be
directed at correcting errors in comments, not covering new material).
>There is not enough
>room to support a CW contest between 1800 and 1843 now, not to mention any
>future growth for contesting efforts.
Which brings me back to my original assertion: why can't we all just get
along?
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with USA answering SSB DX CQs below 1843
with the current rules, so long as it doesn't interfere with other
operators, perhaps in other modes. The presence of the DX operator
calling CQ would tend to discourage other operation. Answering DX
stations on SSB appears consistant with the general purpose of the
bandplan.
Indeed, I don't believe that USA stations answering DX stations on SSB
below 1843 was ever a problem. No, the problem has ALWAYS been habitual
use of SSB for DOMESTIC QSOs below 1843 (indeed, below 1850). The guys
running the "Window Shade Net" or other SSB nets in this part of the band
certainly were well aware they were causing trouble.
With the FCC enforcement action in September, it appears that the
bandplan is working as it should. USA stations are encouraged to move
above 1843. CQing below 1843 was certainly shown to be less than
productive.
If more mode separation is desired, the next step is for DX operators to
either move above 1843, or to listen split above 1843. That looks like a
very hard task.
In the meantime, some tolerance of SSB operations below 1843 for that
purpose seems expedient.
>Do we push the ARRL to go back to the old band plan (Gentleman's band)?
In reality, the "new" bandplan isn't substantially different from the
old. Going back at this point is likely to send the wrong message.
>This plan was in effect for decades and has worked 95 percent of the time.
Did it? What about those obnoxious hams who ran domestic SSB nets below
1850?
>Most of the 160 operators were willing to allow contesting, both CW & SSB
>for a few weekends per year. DX guys liked the contest since it brought DX
>activity to the band.
For Contests, I don't really think the bandplan was "broken". The only
benefit realised is some clearing out of the low end of the band for weak
SSB DX stations. They can now be heard, but working them is an issue,
since most refuse to listen split. Essentially, it has given us a much
bigger DX window than before.
>What can we do now? (GET INVOLVED)
>
>1. Ask the ARRL to reevaluate the 160-meter band plan.
What should the ARRL change in the band plan?
>2. Work with the special interest group to preserve the band from the Bubba
>nets, moving up from 75 meters.
I have no problem with domestic net operation on 160m. Just don't put
them below 1850 kHz. Encourage them to move high in the band -- like
above 1950 kHz.
>3. Ask our CQ and ARRL officials to work closer together to prevent future
>contest policy conflicts.
It would have been nice if CQ had taken a definite stance of the issue.
>4. Encourage the IARU to work toward a constant world wide160-meter band
>plan.
Indeed. The hard part of widespread adoption of the bandplan is for DX
operators to know and follow it, too.
>5. Report non-contest stations to the FCC that intentionally interfere with
>legitimate contest operating (any band). Mr. Hollingsworth e-mail address is
>rholling@fcc.gov
You can remove the words "non-contest" and "contest" from that sentence.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
|