Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Voice below 3.6 MHz

Expand Messages
  • David Ring
    Received this very important message from Dick Singer - things are not what has been going around. READ THIS CAREFULLY - and let s support those who oppose the
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Received this very important message from Dick Singer - things are not
      what has been going around.

      READ THIS CAREFULLY - and let's support those who oppose the
      elimination of the "SQUEEZE" of CW.

      When replying - make sure you reply only to one reflector - I've put
      in several on the address.

      73

      DR

      David N1EA

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: RAC HFBPC
      To: Dick Singer/K6KSG
      Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:50 AM
      Subject: Re: Voice below 3.6 MHz


      Dick de Jim VE1JF (member, RAC HF Band Planning Committee)--

      We agree; note the second paragraph of our introduction to the plan:
      http://www.rac.ca/service/RAC_Draft_HF_Band_PlanR1.pdf

      Our RAC President and VP-International will shortly be attending
      a Region 2 Band Planning meeting; they will be presenting and
      supporting a strong position paper from us requesting that
      Region 2 reverse this position, which compresses both CW and
      digital. We hope our position will receive broad support from
      other Region 2 IARU members.

      Please feel free to share this information with others who may
      be interested. It appears from at least some of the comments
      we are receiving that this item is being disseminated as originated
      by us; the actual advocates of below-3600 voice are outside
      Canada.

      73,

      Jim, VE1JF


      On 8/3/07, Dick Singer/K6KSG <k6ksg@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Sirs;
      >
      > Please reconsider your proposal for increasing the use of voice (SSB) operations below 3.6 MHz in the 80 meter CW band.
      >
      > We amateur operators in the U.S. use these frequencies for CW traffic nets and general communications.
      >
      > The added interference that would occur would be very difficult to operate CW and pass traffic as well as for general CW communications.
      >
      > Please reconsider.
      >
      > Thank You,
      >
      > Richard Singer/K6KSG
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.