[CW] ARRL Board requests policy recommendations to implement WRC-03 results

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:31:23 -0500

A CW op trying to coexist with SSB or AM phone is a difficult proposition. A
phone station can notch out a CW signal though. I know this because Canadian
SSB ops have caused me to QRT when they start talking on top of my QSO.

No, everyone doesn't know that the CW subband allocations are unrealistic.
80-m during the summer is not the ideal place to be (I don't hear many phone
stations either). The band is noisy and there are alternatives � just like
there are alternatives to 10-m during less than peak solar conditions. NTS
CW nets rely on 80-m to pass traffic and train operators. They need space to
pass traffic off of the net frequency. 80-m during the winter months are
filled with CW and other digital signals.

There is increased digital activity with a never ending supply of new modes.
These modes should be encouraged because they are efficient users of
spectrum and you just might learn something in the process. Encouraging
wideband modes by allowing a free-for-all, no subband environment will not
best serve a technical radio service. Expanding the pool of wideband
telephony appliance operators doesn't seem like a worthy goal unless we want
to encourage inefficient use of spectrum.

73 de Mike, N9BOR
A-1, FISTS, JARL A-1, SMC, ZUT
http://www.qsl.net/n9bor

di dah dit - The only Roger Beep you'll ever need.
Let your fingers do the talking � Morse code.
My designated driver is a 12BY7A.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Donald Chester
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 10:21 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [CW] ARRL Board requests policy recommendations to
> implement WRC-03 results
>
>
>
> I was opposed to slo-code and no-code from the outset.  However,
> I think the
> present CW subbands (yes, I know it's not politically correct to
> call them
> "cw bands" but everyone knows what I am talking about) are unrealistic,
> especially on 80m.
>
> I'd rather have code tests and no subbands than subbands and no code test.
>
> Don K4KYV