[CW] subands

[Alan W. N5LF]

RE: K8JE's (ARRL Great Lakes Division Director) proposal

There is no technical reason for splitting so much - why 4 different
bandwidth ranges?  Under his scheme, I would have to pay attention to the
frequency to make sure my CW isn't going to fast or too slow!  Otherwise, I
guess I get a pink slip for speeding!  Or for slowing down for a newbie or a
fill!

Two subbands would suffice, and to be less disruptive it should reflect the
current subband situation.  For example, band segments would remain just as
they are if it were defined as

  1) Bandwidth more than 1 kHz (currently voice/image area)
  2) Bandwidth 1 kHz or less (currently digital area)
  3) CW allowed on all frequencies (currently the same)

This kind of scheme was suggested by Peter Martinez (inventor of PSK31, and
appreciator of CW) in a letter to QST a couple of years ago.

It could make sense to have a subband for the modes that don't require you
to listen - most of digital modes, including digital voice.  But CW still
everywhere.  For example, what it bandplan moved the narrow band digital
guys to 7.100 to 7.150, or 7.075 to 7.150?

Why does he suggest a MINIMUM bandwidth? Under his plan, CW would no longer
be universally allowed.  So, if my EMERGENCY HF net has trouble passing
critical info on HF (including where to QSY to), does that mean we wouldn't
be able to handle the traffic on frequency in CW? Mode agility is a great
advantage to ham radio.

We do not want CW-only subbands in exchange for exclusion from anywhere
else.  CW should remain legal everywhere.