manualman at juno.com
Sun Jan 29 12:50:29 EST 2006
Where do you want to put all the current and future digital (voice and
data) type modes on 75/80 meters; in the CW subband or the phone
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:31:46 -0600 "Mike Sanders K0AZ"
<k0az at corpranet.net> writes:
> I agree. The 75 meter band needs to be opened up to voice lower in
> frequency. The
> current allocation for CW only makes no sense. Even running a CW
> from 3500
> to 3600 would be a help but I suspect it could be smaller than that
> still be no problem
> for CW ops.
> Just because I intend to use CW forever I am not in favor of
> protecting a
> larger than
> needed subband. I am in favor of subbands though.
> K0AZ Mike Sanders
> 18169 Highway 174
> MT Vernon, Missouri 65712-9171
> k0az at k0az.com <mailto:k0az at k0az.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Donald Chester
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:26 PM
> To: amradio at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: RE: [AMRadio] hecklers
> >From: "Mike Sanders K0AZ" <k0az at corpranet.net>
> >The low end of 6 meters is used EXTENSIVELY on CW for weak signal
> >intercontinental DX.
> I don't find this so much a problem. I believe there is a similar
> subband on 2 m. as well. That represents only 1/40 of the 6m band.
> would be the equivalent of a 12.5 kHz kHz CW band on 80m.
> The real problem is with the outdated subband restrictions we have
> on HF.
> For example, 50% of the 3.5-4.0 mHz band is restricted to
> communications that could easily fit into less than 20% of the band,
> during CW contests.
> Don k4kyv
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 21 Oct 2017.