[CW] Re: And now the other shoe drops...

[David J. Ring, Jr.]

Hello Bill,

I agree with you.  80 meters is especially important "real estate" - 
especially at night.

While I personally would rather have 3700-3775 reserved for traffic and 
regional nets (but how do you enforce this - so that a group of loud-mouths 
doesn't say "we're the regional net"?) - I understand (especially on 80 
meters the Canadians moving down to avoid the racket south of their border.

However,  during the daytime, is LSB operation necessary on 7040 kHz?

Even at night - when 7025 and below is restricted to "extra" hams, and the 
traditional stomping grounds of "dx QSOs only" - and 7035 is inter-region 
RTTY and the top of the 7050-7100 kHz is full or ITU region 1 and 3 SSB, 
where is a station to go?

I know quite a few VE1/2/3 stations that don't like the QRM from one net 
that operates around 7035 and splashes down to 7030 during the day.

They have no where to operate!

But - hold on - it can and is worse elsewhere - for years there's been a 
group of YV SSBers who operate on 7005 kHz.

Even the YV CW stations don't like this!

73

David N1EA
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Evans" <bevans at ebsys.mb.ca>
To: "David J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea at arrl.net>; "Donald Chester" 
<k4kyv at hotmail.com>; <scottamcmullen at yahoo.com>; <markd at mfwi.org>; 
<wb8rcr at arrl.net>; <cw at mailman.qth.net>; "Anthony W. DePrato" 
<wa4jqs at mikrotec.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [CW] Re: And now the other shoe drops...


David:

As a Canadian operator who is active on both 40 and 80 M,  I read your
comment on our 40/80 M SSB behaviour with interest.  I agree 100% with the
concerns on 40 M.  The first 100 KHz is just too precious worldwide for CW,
RTTY and the other digital modes to be used for SSB by Canadians without
really good justification.  I never have any trouble finding spectrum above
7150 KHz to qso with fellow Canadians and avoid the low end religiously.

However, 80 M is another matter.  All of our provincial nets and the
national "Pow Wow Club" nightly net in the winter are below 3750 KHz to
avoid interference from US SSB stations.  Our Manitoba Evening Phone Net
operated on 3760 KHz for decades, but was forced to shift to 3747 KHz this
past winter because of persistent interference.  When the FCC re-farms the
Novice bands, I would predict the Canadian SSB net operations will just move
further down the band.  80 M above 3750 KHz is a very busy SSB band to my
ears year-round.

A major beef that I have is with Canadian stations in contests that set up
on 3750 and /or 7150 KHz calling CQ - and drawing US stations "out of band".
In most cases it is just ignorance of the US band requirements.

Personally, I don't think that our regulator, Industry Canada, should have
dropped the band segmentation rules that it maintainaed for so many years.
Conversely, RAC, the Canadian equivalent of ARRL has recommended band plans
that are consistent with an appropriate separation of CW and SSB (with the
exception of 40 M) and most Canadian hams follow those plans.

Bill Evans
VE4UD

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea at arrl.net>
To: "Donald Chester" <k4kyv at hotmail.com>; <scottamcmullen at yahoo.com>;
<markd at mfwi.org>; <wb8rcr at arrl.net>; <cw at mailman.qth.net>; "Anthony W.
DePrato" <wa4jqs at mikrotec.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [CW] Re: And now the other shoe drops...


>I think Don was talking about 80 meters especially during the daytime.  Now
> a days - during the summer especially - 80 meters at night is like 80
> meters
> was like during the day (activity wise) during the day 20 years ago.
>
> At night 20 years ago, 80 was packed.
>
> Now it isn't packed.  There are perhaps 15 frequencies being used
> actively.
>
> A whole lot of "space" between QSOs on the CW band.
>
> Of course, the CW bands of 40 and 80 are "shortened" by our Northern
> Neighbors who want to operate in a "SSB Preserve" not sullied by W-K-N
> callsigns.
>
> 73
>
> David N1EA




-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.1/51 - Release Date: 7/18/2005