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 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

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:


"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


I would, though, but I have no connection with NCI

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient

Can't we all just get along?

Brian wrote:
Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..


Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient


Can't we all just get along?

Quiet Rodney! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Alun Palmer wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:


"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



I would, though, but I have no connection with NCI

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient

HAR! Funny I should come across this post immediately after telling
Carl that the whole thing isn't just about him.

There ya go!

- mike KB3EIA -

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient

Seeing as how the USA has more hams than any other country in Region
2, why not have those other countries get their phone subbands in line
with the USA?

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun Palmer wrote in message
. ..

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2
would be sufficient

Seeing as how the USA has more hams than any other country in Region
2, why not have those other countries get their phone subbands in line
with the USA?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Because the US is only one country