Where do you want to put all the current and future digital (voice and data) type modes on 75/80 meters; in the CW subband or the phone subband?? Pete, wa2cwa
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:31:46 -0600 "Mike Sanders K0AZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I agree. The 75 meter band needs to be opened up to voice lower in > frequency. The > current allocation for CW only makes no sense. Even running a CW > subband > from 3500 > to 3600 would be a help but I suspect it could be smaller than that > and > still be no problem > for CW ops. > Just because I intend to use CW forever I am not in favor of > protecting a > larger than > needed subband. I am in favor of subbands though. > 73 > > > K0AZ Mike Sanders > 18169 Highway 174 > MT Vernon, Missouri 65712-9171 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Donald Chester > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:26 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [AMRadio] hecklers > > > > >From: "Mike Sanders K0AZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >The low end of 6 meters is used EXTENSIVELY on CW for weak signal > >intercontinental DX. > > I don't find this so much a problem. I believe there is a similar > CW > subband on 2 m. as well. That represents only 1/40 of the 6m band. > It > would be the equivalent of a 12.5 kHz kHz CW band on 80m. > > The real problem is with the outdated subband restrictions we have > on HF. > For example, 50% of the 3.5-4.0 mHz band is restricted to > accomodate > communications that could easily fit into less than 20% of the band, > even > during CW contests. > > Don k4kyv
