|
wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: [snip] --- OK, here's one to toss around: Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in the "60 meter" region. Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. or 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz overall? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'd vote for the 2nd one. In my opinion, the bands we have now are nicely space to take advantage of variations in propagation. However, I'd like a lot more room on both 40 meters and 30 meters. If 30m could be widened, then a phone section could be added. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: [snip] --- OK, here's one to toss around: Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in the "60 meter" region. Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. or 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz overall? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'd vote for the 2nd one. In my opinion, the bands we have now are nicely space to take advantage of variations in propagation. However, I'd like a lot more room on both 40 meters and 30 meters. If 30m could be widened, then a phone section could be added. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE A PCTA wants more phone privs? FISTS rampage. Hiram groans. |
|
bb wrote:
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message groups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: [snip] --- OK, here's one to toss around: Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in the "60 meter" region. Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. or 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz overall? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'd vote for the 2nd one. In my opinion, the bands we have now are nicely space to take advantage of variations in propagation. However, I'd like a lot more room on both 40 meters and 30 meters. If 30m could be widened, then a phone section could be added. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE A PCTA wants more phone privs? FISTS rampage. Hiram groans. It's all black or white Brian? A PCTA or NCTA has only one way to think and one opinion on how things are? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message groups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: [snip] --- OK, here's one to toss around: Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in the "60 meter" region. Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. or 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz overall? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'd vote for the 2nd one. In my opinion, the bands we have now are nicely space to take advantage of variations in propagation. However, I'd like a lot more room on both 40 meters and 30 meters. If 30m could be widened, then a phone section could be added. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE A PCTA wants more phone privs? FISTS rampage. Hiram groans. It's all black or white Brian? A PCTA or NCTA has only one way to think and one opinion on how things are? - Mike KB3EIA - Has the code exam been dropped yet? Might as well be all black or all white because at the end of the day there are still people who support the wall. |
Dave Heil wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: [snip] --- OK, here's one to toss around: Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in the "60 meter" region. Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. or 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz overall? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'd vote for the 2nd one. In my opinion, the bands we have now are nicely space to take advantage of variations in propagation. However, I'd like a lot more room on both 40 meters and 30 meters. If 30m could be widened, then a phone section could be added. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE A PCTA wants more phone privs? FISTS rampage. Hiram groans. It's all black or white Brian? A PCTA or NCTA has only one way to think and one opinion on how things are? - Mike KB3EIA - Brian seems to be of the opinion that anyone who support morse testing operates nuttin' but CW. Dave K8MN Jim told me that a Morse Code Exam would be a barrier to CW use. Hi! Some people can only think in terms of CW. |
"bb" wrote in message oups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message groups.com... Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: [snip] --- OK, here's one to toss around: Right now we have 9 HF/MF bands, plus some spot frequencies in the "60 meter" region. Suppose that at some point we hams had the choice of either: 1) New, very narrow bands elsewhere in the HF/MF spectrum (say, 2.5 to 2.6 MHz, 6.0 to 6.1 MHz, etc.. or 2) Widening of existing bands and/or change to worldwide amateur. Such as 7.0-7.4 becomes worldwide exclusive amateur, 10.1 to 10.2 does the same, 14.0 to 14.4 (which the band used to be), etc. Which would be preferable, if we wound up with the same number of kHz overall? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'd vote for the 2nd one. In my opinion, the bands we have now are nicely space to take advantage of variations in propagation. However, I'd like a lot more room on both 40 meters and 30 meters. If 30m could be widened, then a phone section could be added. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE A PCTA wants more phone privs? FISTS rampage. Hiram groans. It's all black or white Brian? A PCTA or NCTA has only one way to think and one opinion on how things are? - Mike KB3EIA - Has the code exam been dropped yet? Might as well be all black or all white because at the end of the day there are still people who support the wall. There is no wall but what people create in their own minds. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun 12 Jun 2005 18:10
"bb" wrote in message roups.com... Has the code exam been dropped yet? Might as well be all black or all white because at the end of the day there are still people who support the wall. There is no wall but what people create in their own minds. There is no wall the deaf cannot hear through. There is no wall that the blind cannot see through. There is no wall that the paraplegic cannot walk through. There is no wall that bars the physical being from doing anything they dream of... ...in their DREAMS. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com