--part1_4f.1801dd94.298e8306_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 2/1/02 5:07:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
thompson@mindspring.com writes:
> I have filed comments with the FCC in opposition to any formal segmentation
> on 160 at this time. A better approach is to get
> IARU to get 1800 to 1900 Khz as a world wide band so we can implement the
> ARRL and IARU volunteer plans
Dave,
Thanks very much for following up with the correspondence to Hollingsworth. I
recently exchanged several e-mails with W4ZV about the proposed band change
but could not get him to see how the plan has a negative effect to contesting
on 160 meters. In addition to your perviously mentioned concerns, I feel that
if the FCC adopted the narrow and wide band segments, amateurs operating on
CW above 1843 in contest would be increasingly challenged by SSB stations for
the frequency. Its not much of a problem now but once the "shared " band is
segmented, SSB station will force the CW stations to stay below 1843. This
could be proven by operating a 24 hour CW contest above 3750. The 43 KHZ,
1800-1843, minus the DX window, will not be enough room to support a CW
contest, especially during the years of low sun spot activity.
As John mentioned, the Bubba group is slowly migrating to 160 and there will
soon be a net on every 5 KHZ of the SSB portion of the band. The point is
also well taken that without the FCC band change, the Bubba nets could be on
every 5 KHZ of the entire 160 meter ham spectrum. I do not claim to have a
"cure all" answer for the 160 band plan and have put considerable thought
into searching for a solution.
Thanks again for your support in this matter,
Ron W4WA
--part1_4f.1801dd94.298e8306_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3>In a message dated 2/1/02
5:07:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, thompson@mindspring.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I have filed comments with the FCC in
opposition to any formal segmentation<BR>
on 160 at this time. A better approach is to get<BR>
IARU to get 1800 to 1900 Khz as a world wide band so we can implement the<BR>
ARRL and IARU volunteer plans</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Dave,<BR>
<BR>
Thanks very much for following up with the correspondence to Hollingsworth. I
recently exchanged several e-mails with W4ZV about the proposed band change but
could not get him to see how the plan has a negative effect to contesting on
160 meters. In addition to your perviously mentioned concerns, I feel that if
the FCC adopted the narrow and wide band segments, amateurs operating on CW
above 1843 in contest would be increasingly challenged by SSB stations for the
frequency. Its not much of a problem now but once the "shared " band is
segmented, SSB station will force the CW stations to stay below 1843. This
could be proven by operating a 24 hour CW contest above 3750. The 43 KHZ,
1800-1843, minus the DX window, will not be enough room to support a CW
contest, especially during the years of low sun spot activity. <BR>
<BR>
As John mentioned, the Bubba group is slowly migrating to 160 and there will
soon be a net on every 5 KHZ of the SSB portion of the band. The point is also
well taken that without the FCC band change, the Bubba nets could be on every 5
KHZ of the entire 160 meter ham spectrum. I do not claim to have a "cure all"
answer for the 160 band plan and have put considerable thought into searching
for a solution.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Thanks again for your support in this matter,<BR>
<BR>
Ron W4WA<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_4f.1801dd94.298e8306_boundary--
--
SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
Submissions: secc@contesting.com
Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
|