[CW] Code Stuff - like the CW bands!

[N2EY at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/6/08 10:59:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, n1ea at arrl.net 
writes:


> The bands are a mess!  Last night I couldn't even find a frequency on 80 or
> 40 meters to have a contact.

With all due respect - what are you using for a receiver?
> 
> On 40 meters only 7025 to 7028 were "non DX" and available - the rest of the
> band was all RTTY.
> 

> 80 meters was a bit better - from 3525 to 3560 was available but it was 
> very
> busy - after all - all of the CW National Traffic Nets are there also now.
> Those nets are very efficient - but they take up more room than the FCC
> regulators (Mr. Cross) knows about because he is rarely on the air with the
> NCS - and perhaps never has.
> 

I was on 80 last night and had no problem. Had a great QSO with W9ZN.


> But what whacks the shellac from the old barn post is the "phone band" -
> from 3600 to 4000 - it's wide open.  Only a few stations there - and many
> are very very wide signals - mostly from poor distorting signals not "hi fi"
> phone.
> 

That's what FCC says we need. 


> The RTTY and CW mix really doesn't work.  Put RTTY in its own section.  The
> phone bands are too big.
> 
> OK, what do we have?
> 
> 3500-3525 Extra and DX window
> 3526-3625 CW only
> 3625-3700 RTTY
> 3700-4000 'phone
> 
> I don't know if International QSOs can take place with this frequency
> assignment in all countries both on RTTY and 'phone, but it sure is a lot
> better than we have now?
> 

The sad fact is that the idea of narrowing the phone bands simply won't sell.

> Gentle CW operators, your comments?
> 
> IMHO, what's needed is a version of the "regulation by bandwidth" idea. 

Something like this:

3500-3550 - 250 Hz or narrower
3550-3600 - 500 Hz or narrower
3600-3700 - 3500 Hz or narrower
3700-4000 - 9000 Hz or narrower

73 de Jim, N2EY





**************
Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.
     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489