[CW] Re: Why did the FCC(ARRL) FRack up 80 meters so bad?

[Ron Zond]

Hi to the group

Don is correct. It seems that with a smaller segment on 80,
there is more activity. Aside from the traffic nets (which I frequent),
I hear more CW ops. I haven't found any speed merchants yet.
Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. it is good to have activity;
people can learn to use the filters on their modern rigs.

Ron
K3MIY

-----Original Message-----
From: cw-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:cw-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On
Behalf Of D. Chester
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 12:18 PM
To: cw at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [CW] Re: Why did the FCC(ARRL) FRack up 80 meters so bad?


Because there was so little activity between 3600 and 3700.  A handful of
traffic nets in the evening, and maybe a half dozen  RTTY and data qso's,
and that was about it.  Much of the time the segment would be completely
empty while all the cw stations packed themselves into the bottom end and
the phone band was congested beyond usability.

I find the density of cw activity on 3500-3580 now to be about the same as
it was across the entire 3500-3750 segment when I first got started in
amateur radio in 1959.

Receiving with an appropriate bandwidth cw filter, with negligible drift in
my transmitter and receiver, I don't find the "new" cw band unreasonably
congested, even during weekend prime time.  Except during contests of
course, but that's an exception; I don't think of contest weekends as
"normal" activity.

As a  matter of fact, I find it easier to make cw qso's now because I'm not
tuning through all those idle kilohertz listening with my 300 Hz receiving
filter, searching for a signal.

Use it or lose it.

Don k4kyv


_______________________________________________
CW mailing list
CW at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw