John,
I agree that phone bands should be expanded to reflect the bulk of activity
that has come to pass as ham radio these days. But you miss the point. Too
many people were either sloppy, confused (I recieved a report today thru a
friend that someone who called just plain didn't know it was out of bounds to
work us at 21135), or just plain greedy. I think those are the real issues.
Ron, K8NZ
In a message dated 10/31/02 8:56:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
johngeig@yahoo.com writes:
> Before the flames start too much on my next comments,
> understand that I am mainly a CW operator, who is
> getting interested in the digital modes also.
>
> Maybe part of the solution to operating out of band is
> to reaccess the US phone band limits. Take 15 meters
> for example. SInce the ARRL helped to kill the Novice
> license 10 years ago, why do we need 100 KC of CW only
> at 200 watts between 21.100 to 21.200. Remember that
> during the CW CQWW contest. When a US station goes
> above 21.100, as they will if we get any decent
> propogation, turn off the amp. Same for
> 28.100-28.200.
>
> There really is no reason today for having a "Non US
> phone band" like there may have been in the past. The
> days of the US ham having the good equipment and the
> rest of the world having to operate on junk are over.
> Hams in JA, EU, Asia, SA are using stations that would
> put many US hams, myself included, to shame.
>
> There is no reason we could not drop the bottom of the
> US phone band to 21.150, or .140, while saving a few
> KCs for the novices that still remain. There are a
> few, I worked one last year on 15 CW. Same for 80
> meters. I believe we could easily drop phone down to
> 3.650 or so, which would eliminate much of the split
> operation now needed there. We already have the
> 3.500-3.600 segment for CW, and 3.600 -3.700 is pretty
> much a vast wasteland here in the US with little CW or
> digital operating taking place. Ditto for 14.100 to
> 14.150.
>
> Lets get with the times and get the US phone bands
> readjusted, especially now since we are handing out
> general and extra class licenses to anyone who can
> sign their names, and these new operators, for the
> most part, are not running CW for obvious reasons.
>
> 73s John NE0P
>
>
> --- Nzharps@aol.com wrote:
> > Hi Pete,
> >
> > Interestingly PJ2 was a rare mult this past weekend.
> > We missed it on 5
> > bands, only working one on 10m.
> >
> > Seems that ease of operation has translated into
> > poor or sloppy operating
> > technique. After having operated in multi
> > environments for many years and
> > having observed lots of poor operating practice
> > related to packet, I guess I
> > just need to add this on to the list.
> >
> > Maybe someone should write a book entitled "Packet
> > assisted 101" to help both
> > neophytes and old vets do a better job using what
> > should be a great tool.
> >
> > 73,
> > Ron, K8NZ
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 10/30/02 12:21:07 PM Pacific
> > Standard Time,
> > n4zr@contesting.com writes:
> >
> >
> > > I'm skeptical that people would be that desperate
> > for a PJ2. I suspect
> > > that many of those who messed up probably were
> > assisted stations that
> > > called you on a point-and-shoot basis. The ease
> > of operation of the
> > > current generation of logging software, which
> > normally grabs both the
> > > receive and transmit frequencies, makes it really
> > easy to screw up. If a
> > > VE spots you, with no QSX data, that spot quickly
> > propagates all over the
> > > US. It's really easy to overlook in the heat of
> > rapid S&P operation, and
> > > be into a QSO before you realize you're simplex
> > somewhere out of the band
>
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
|