[AMRadio] hecklers


Peter Markavage manualman at juno.com
Sun Jan 29 13:56:42 EST 2006


Yes; Yes; currently in the CW subbands. 

Where should I (we) transmit digital voice or digital multimedia when it
becomes more of a part of the amateur radio's arsenal of modes to use.
I'm not talking about today or tomorrow but 5 to 10 years down the road
which is what the ARRL proposal is targeting. Of course with the CTT
proposal, it's "jungle law", any mode any where, subject only to your
class of license.

Pete, wa2cwa

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:00:52 -0600 "Mike Sanders K0AZ"
<k0az at corpranet.net> writes:
> Do you work CW? Do you work HF digital Modes? What do you think?
> 
> 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 Peter 
> Markavage
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:50 AM
> To: amradio at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] hecklers
> 
> 
> 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
> subband??
> Pete, wa2cwa
> 
> 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
> > subband
> > from 3500
> > to 3600 would be a help but I suspect it could be smaller than 
> that
> > and
> > 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.
> > 73
> >
> >
> > 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
> > CW
> > subband on 2 m. as well.  That represents only 1/40 of the 6m 
> band.
> > It
> > 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
> > accomodate
> > communications that could easily fit into less than 20% of the 
> band,
> > even
> > during CW contests.
> >
> > Don k4kyv



More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 17 Oct 2017.