[CW] statement of an AM op

[David J. Ring, Jr.]

I agree that 3500-4000 is one of our TWO large bands on HF.

But in between 3600-3700 kHz is RTTY and also one heck of a lot of traffic
handling on CW.

We have to provide "premium" frequencies for our traffic handling nets -
this is the bread and butter of ham radio.

These people are earning OUR KEEP - this is our purpose - to handle traffic.

How many people have given a few hours on traffic nets in your local area?
How many have certificates for your local ARRL section nets, for your
regional nets, for your area nets?  How many have taken a Trans-Continental
Corps (TCC) sked to handle traffic between areas?

On what mode is most of the traffic handled?

73

DR


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <N7DC@cs.com>
To: <cw@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 10:52 PM
Subject: [CW] statement of an AM op


"I would suggest that the "phone" or "wideband" segment be extended
down at minimum to 3600 kHz. 100 kHz seems more than adequate to
accomodate the present level of cw and narrowband data activity on 80"

Statement of someone who either cant or doesnt work CW.  Come on bug
pushers,
we gotta get our 2 cents in on this thing.  I see absolutely no reason to
loose 25 kc of my present CW/narrow band subband, and thats exactly what
they
want to do.  With the ever increasing use of narrow band psk and other new
modes,
we dont need to give up any bandwidth whatsoever.


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---
_______________________________________________
CW mailing list
CW@mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw