[CW] CW Subband Set-Asides

[John Rippey]

The more I read comments on this reflector, the more convinced I am that 
Ken Brown's original idea, perhaps as modified by suggestions here, has a 
chance of adoption (eventually).

For one thing, if memory serves, the ARRL has a committee looking into 
arranging the HF bands by transmission bandwidth. If so, then the ARRL may 
already be half-pregnant on this subject. We can certainly encourage them 
to move in this direction.

Second, the recent 60-meter band ruling by the FCC. In its original 
proposal requesting comment on this matter, the FCC asked whether it would 
be a good idea to let the band's modes be determined by voluntary agreement 
among hams or by regulation. As it turned out, once the complaint was filed 
by the NTIA about interference with other government agencies, the FCC's 
proposal was scaled back drastically. The final ruling mandates upper 
sideband operation only, and that MAY be an answer to the question of 
whether the FCC is willing to continue getting into minutiae such as 
regulating modes on HF subbands as opposed to letting them become a 
free-for-all. At least it did so in this one instance.

Finally, if we can convince the ARRL and the FCC that CW is a useful mode 
in local and national emergencies, that would be a help in arguing for 
subband set-asides.  I'm not sure how much enthusiasm there is in hamdom 
for making this argument, however. Here in Virginia, I'm told that 
participation in CW traffic nets is way down from what it was years ago.

73,
John, W3ULS