[Elecraft] Re: 'Threat' to 30m

[EricJ]

 Yes, I agree. I think the proposed proposal (?) with its implicit QRO, high
bandwidth unattended transmissions is clearly against the QRP, narrow
bandwidth (cw, psk31, etc.) trend on the crowded HF frequencies. Unattended
pactor stations on 20 are like big yellow Hummers in a crowded parking lot.
They need more restriction, not less.

Eric
KE6US

-----Original Message-----
From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Dave Sergeant
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 3:11 AM
To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] Re: 'Threat' to 30m

On 5 Apr 2005 at 4:01, elecraft-request at mailman.qth.net wrote:

> While nothing has been formally proposed yet and the details being 
> discussed have changed a bit over the past year or so, the current 
> thinking of the ARRL board is that the 3 kHz bandwidth would be 
> permitted not over the whole 30 meter band but only between 
> 10.135-10.150 kHz (see
> http://www.arrl.org/announce/ec_minutes_475.html) where I doubt there 
> is much, if any, CW activity (data modes are currently permitted on 
> the whole band, but tend to exist at the upper end--the proposed 
> changes would LIMIT wider bandwidth to this region).

There is nothing new in this, it is clearly outlined in the April QST. It
certainly has no bearing whatsoever on CW usage of 30m, in Europe at least,
where practically all CW is below 10125 or so. But it may give the SSB chaps
more clout in getting access to the band, that IS a threat...

73 Dave G3YMC

http://www.davesergeant.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft    

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com