I don't find anything unusual at all about other countries giving their phone operations room to roam below the US bands. If I was located there, I would be asking for that too! I don't know about 160, but there is plenty of 'foreign' interference on 80 and 40.
As far as CW goes, 5 wpm is painfully slow and I understand why it isn't used. This speed should only be the first step on a learning curve like it used to be to upgrade your license. You need the motivation to increase your speed or it simply won't be used at all. Nor is it economical to purchase 250 or 500 Hz filters if your not going to use the mode. I'm certainly no Nostradamos, but I wonder when the keyboard data modes will start being squeezed into less space after CW is gone. Once you open the Pandora's box of simply apportioning band segments based upon usage of spectrum alone, look out. What kind of bandwidth will be deemed appropriate for the data modes that have necessary bandwidths smaller than CW as compared to phone? By reducing the amount of space available for a type of use, you pretty much have a self-fullfiling prophecy and assure it won't grow beyond that point. It sounds selfish, but my recommendation would be to quit using PSK31 now and start using the widest, loudest modes there are. You may have to suffer more qrm, but when it comes to showing spectrum usage, the facts will be there. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have never understood this attitude that countries outside the U.S. > should be able to have to move down for voice transmissions. What it > says to me is those operatiors view those lower areas as having more > room without QRM. > > When I compare the amount of ham signals on the bands to say 25 years > ago, it does seem like there are fewer numbers. And this is especially > true in the CW/digital areas with fewer CW signals. > > The folks who are most affected on the lower bands, especially > 160/80/40, from "local" or in country signals, are certainly not the DX > stations, but those who are much closer. > > The other sore point with me is not being allowed to operate voice modes > below 7.100 on 40 meters. This means that when working split, you are > taking up twice as much space. It is unfortunate that there could not > have been a DX area in such cases. For those countries who intentionally > transmit voice in the lower portions, when they really do not need to > for working DX, I find very inappropriate. > > On another note, there seems to be more illegal operation and some of it > close to criminal. Has anyone been noticing that there have been voice > stations right on top of WWV on 10 MHz at times? I don't think this is > some kind of image rejection problem with my Pro II. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > jgorman01 wrote: > > > Believe me there are Canadian and/or Mexican/South Americans signals > > down around 3590 and 7040. > > > > Besides that wasn't the point I attempted to make. My point was that > > if the US allows SSB down to the bottom of the Region 2 subband. Then > > all Region 2 countries need to operate with these same limitations, > > not just have their SSB move further down in order to be below the US. > > > > Jim > > WA0LYK > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
