[CW] ARRL's Reply Comment re Baud Rate Petition

[Ken Brown]

But since that rule does not exist we share the bands with hams who have 
virtually no experience with various modes. Many of them have no 
intention of ever using a mode that requires listening directly to the 
audio output from the receiver.  These are the kinds of hams we may need 
share the bands with. Should it be the entire band, or just a portion of 
each band?

I should also mention, that many have noted having no sub-bands on 160 
meters does not seem to be a problem. And so then it is reasoned that it 
should not be a problem on the rest of the bands. There are a few 
reasons for it not being much of a problem on 160. On 160 meters a 
slightly better understanding of antennas is required to be able to 
generate a decent strength signal. Experimenters on 160 meters either 
get bored with making very few QSOs and move to other bands, or they 
learn more about antennas. That and the historical power limitations 
when the band was shared with radio-location services has made the band 
less popular. For a long time it was hard to buy a rig that even worked 
on 160 meters, and it is still common now to find amplifiers that do not 
go there.

On the higher bands it is much more likely that an inexperienced ham 
will have an antenna with reasonable radiation (of RF, not heat) 
efficiency. And so those with little understanding of bandwidth sharing 
and cooperation can do a lot more damage. As more digital modes that are 
usable nearer, or below the noise floor, become popular, I expect we 
will wish there were sub-bands on 160 meters.
>
> DE N6KB
>