SECC
[Top] [All Lists]

[SECC] 160 Meter SSB Contest and the new ARRL Band Plan

Subject: [SECC] 160 Meter SSB Contest and the new ARRL Band Plan
From: k4sb@mindspring.com (K4SB)
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:40:54 +0000
Bill Coleman wrote:
Do we push for the FCC to adopt the existing ARRL band plan?
-------------------------

I've tried to stay out of this, but a couple of the comments Bill
either said or quoted bother me a little.

First of all, I have never seen or heard of any "enforcement action"
by the FCC, and if I just missed it, I'd like a general summary. And I
emphatically would like to see these veiled "threats" of enforcement
by 
Hollingsorth cease. In the first place, I ( or anyone ) may operate CW
or SSB anywhere in that 200 kc spread, and if I choose to operate SSB
on 1820, that is my priviledge and my right, and there is absolutely
nothing the FCC can do about it under current rules. I don't of course
do this, but it is out of consideration for others, not because I
can't.
And please, don't cloud the issue with those "I won't work you if you
operate below such and such". That is your right, and I will defend
your position just as stongly as mine. And don't also try to include
"deliberate interference". I know the rule and abide by it, which is
one hell of a lot more than most of the ops on 160 do. Don't expect to
work CW on 160 with a SSB filter some 2.5 kc wide, and accuse me of
interference when I'm up a couple of kc. 

Secondly, for the life of me, I just cannot understand the ARRL plan,
do not support it, and will not abide by it. The ARRL does not govern
my license, the FCC does, and I'll do what they say I am allowed to.

Lastly, for the life of me, I simple cannot understand why, with a
band 200 kc wide, we or anyone else are in a frenzy about the bottom
43. In my view, if a band plan were to be implemented, let's just give
either the bottom 100 or 1900-2000 to either CW or SSB, and let it go
at that.
Personally, I'd rather see the top 100 go to CW. Antennas are shorter,
and by definition, long haul work is slightly better, as is noise. And
for those who say, "what about the dx allocations?", if they cannot
live with it because of their limits, then they can simply work split,
which is what we're trying to get them to do in the first place.

OK, some few, probably less than 100 in the entire world are going to
have to retune those hugh towers. For the rest of us, we just clip off
a couple of feet on each end of the dipole, or shorten the vertical.

In essense, why in the world are we arguing about 43 kc when we have
200 kc of space available?

73
Ed

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>