wrote:
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Slow Code wrote in news:6tgXg.8071$Y24.103
@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

"Iitoi" wrote in
ink.net:

80M and 40M phone band expansion

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-06-149A1.doc


I don't know if we'll get Mad right away but it's clear the FCC and the
ARRL want to drive all good hams out of the service. Little by little
they'll take away the non-phone portions of the bands and hand it over to
the phone users. Like a frog in a pot of water that's raised to boiling
point, one day us real hams will find we have to place to communicate on
the ham bands that doesn't sound like Citizens Band.

SC


Here's a reality check.

On 80m the rest of the world, except Canada, has always had phone down to
3600 as far back as I can remember, and we are merely joining them. The VE
phone ops still have to stay above 3700, I think.

On 40m the international bandplans have phone down to 7040 except in Region
3 where it is 7030. The only countries that I know of where you can't use
phone down to 7040 are Mexico (7050) and the USA (now 7125 after the
change).

US hams outside Region 2 have had phone down to 7075 for years, and I am on
record as suggesting that we should have that in the mainland US. It's hard
to see why not when you actually look at what the rest of the world is
doing.

At the same time countries in Region 1 aren't supposed to get access to
7100-7200 until the middle of 2007. Many of them already have, but for
those that haven't, a phone subband that goes down to 7125 still doesn't
even reach the top edge of their whole band. Doubtless some of them will be
late in implementing the extra spectrum, so forced split working will drag
on a while longer.

Alun you've been dumping this old whine into the groups for years now
and it's long since worn out. Not that it needs to be explained to you
*again* but the FCC is *protecting* the dx from the hordes of Yanks who
would obliterate the dx if we were allowed to run SSB below 7100.

the FCC does not care about protecting DX forgien or domestic the ARRL
may well have when they sugested this sort of arngementmany years (part
of incentive licening I supose)

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:

the FCC does not care about protecting DX forgien or domestic

.. . . domestic DX . . ?

the ARRL
may well have when they sugested this sort of arngementmany years (part
of incentive licening I supose)

Doesn't matter where the concept came from originally, it's been in
place for decades.

w3rv