[AMRadio] hecklers

[Peter Markavage]

Where do you want to put all the current and future digital (voice and
data) type modes on 75/80 meters; in the CW subband or the phone
subband??
Pete, wa2cwa

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:31:46 -0600 "Mike Sanders K0AZ"
<k0az at corpranet.net> writes:
> I agree. The 75 meter band needs to be opened up to voice lower in
> frequency. The
> current allocation for CW only makes no sense. Even running a CW 
> subband
> from 3500
> to 3600 would be a help but I suspect it could be smaller than that 
> and
> still be no problem
> for CW ops.
> Just because I intend to use CW forever I am not in favor of 
> protecting a
> larger than
> needed subband. I am in favor of subbands though.
> 73
> 
> 
> K0AZ  Mike Sanders
> 18169 Highway 174
> MT Vernon, Missouri 65712-9171
> k0az at k0az.com <mailto:k0az at k0az.com>
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Donald Chester
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:26 PM
> To: amradio at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: RE: [AMRadio] hecklers
> 
> 
> 
> >From: "Mike Sanders K0AZ" <k0az at corpranet.net>
> 
> >The low end of 6 meters is used EXTENSIVELY on CW for weak signal
> >intercontinental DX.
> 
> I don't find this so much a problem.  I believe there is a similar 
> CW
> subband on 2 m. as well.  That represents only 1/40 of the 6m band.  
> It
> would be the equivalent of a 12.5 kHz kHz CW band on 80m.
> 
> The real problem is with the outdated subband restrictions we have 
> on HF.
> For example, 50% of the 3.5-4.0 mHz band is restricted to 
> accomodate
> communications that could easily fit into less than 20% of the band, 
> even
> during CW contests.
> 
> Don k4kyv