View Single Post
  #295   Report Post  
Old July 16th 03, 02:42 PM
Carl R. Stevenson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden
will be on the users of non-phone modes.



And right there you have it!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike,

Don't read Bill's comments above as "NCI Policy" or "NCI Goals/Agenda" ...
that's
simply not the case.

Bill's just stating the obvious. (And since what CW fans refer to as "the
CW
bands" are actually the "non-SSB/phone, CW/narrowband digital modes bands,"
the occupancy thereof that Bill refers to need not be solely CW users, but
users
of other digital modes as well.

Collectively, they (CW and digital users) need to "use it or lose it" in a
long-term,
practical sense (even ARRL says "use it or lose it" ... see Dave Sumner's
recent
column on the new channels near 5 MHz). That, I am sure, is what Bill meant
when he said "The burden will be on the users of non-phone modes."

HOWEVER, phone band expansion is NOT an NCI agenda ... the ARRL has,
though, asked the FCC in the past to expand the phone bands by "refarming"
the Novice bands ... and, if the FCC were to see that roughly half of our HF
bands were grossly underutilized, they might, of their own volition, decide
to
do some "refarming" in the form of phone band expansion.

As I have said over and over, I would NOT favor/support phone band expansion
at the expense of the CW/digital portions of the bands.

Carl - wk3c