[160m] Re: Topband: 160 Meters and ARRL

[Joe Craig]

Tom and group.

I'm concerned about what is going on up here too.  See:

http://www.rac.ca/opsinfo/160mband.htm

and the exception in Note 4.


Joe VO1NA

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Tom Rauch wrote:

> Unless I'm missing something, the ARRL once again spit in the face of 160
> operators.
>
> Despite a majority support for a narrow mode segment on 160 in the recent RM
> petition, the ARRL asked for re-farming of other bands and true to form
> ignored 160. At least that is what E-Ham reports in an ARRL release.
>
> http://www.eham.net/articles/7475
>
> Why the ARRL constantly ignores 160 is beyond me. In the 70's, Prose Walker
> told W2EQS and myself in written correspondence that 160 could be fully
> returned to amateurs if there was any push at all. Needless to say there
> wasn't any effort.
>
> I wonder what it takes to get the attention of the people in an Ivory Tower?
> Will they ever show any concern for 160 meters?
>
> 73 Tom
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Topband mailing list
> Topband@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
>