Thread
:
ARRL to propose subband-by-bandwidth regulation
View Single Post
#
3
August 18th 04, 12:17 PM
N2EY
Posts: n/a
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:
"KØHB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote
- No CW-only subbands
There never have been any "CW-only" subbands on HF.
That's true - but there should be!
Personally, I'd propose a regulation similar to what currently exists on
160M --- "Here are your bands. Stay inside of the edges. Have a nice
day."
The result would be chaos. All you have to do is tune around 160 a bit
to come to the conclusion that the ops who get on 160 are with very
rare exceptions a whole different breed of cat from the hordes of
HF-only spectrum dwellers from a number of perspectives. The
"misbehavior ratios" being one of those. If there was a simplistic
"unisolution" like you're proposing it would have been implemented
decades ago.
Agreed but there's even more to it.
160 used to have subbands-by-mode. Then hams all but lost the band to LORAN. We
got it back in little bits and pieces over a couple of decades. The lack of
subbands-by-mode today is a result of that, not any special characteristic of
160.
btw, anybody who says "CW is dead" should take a look at the ARRL 160 m contest
scores.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Reply With Quote
