RE: Correction

---------

From: Mark J. Dulcey (mdulcey@pryder.pn.com)
Date: Tue Aug 29 1995 - 16:31:23 EDT


On Tue, 29 Aug 1995, Roger Hightower wrote:

> >To: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org>
> >From: aa7qy@primenet.com (Roger Hightower)
> >Subject: RE: Correction
> >
> >
> >>With regard to 7.040 MHz as a QRP frequency, it is we and not the rest of
> >>the world who are the odd man out. Here is the text of a letter on the
> >>subject that I sent to W0HEP earlier this year which you may find of
> >>interest.
> >>
> >(Long text deleted....if a qrp-l member wants a copy, pse e-mail
> >me direct and I will forward)
> >
> >Thanks for the response, David. I have heard from some Europeans who
> >also let me know that we Americans were "off freq", as it were. Guess
> >I should have done some more homework.

US and rest-of-the-world frequency usage on 40 meters is very different
because of the difference in band allocation. In most of the world, the
40 meter band is only 100KHz wide; only region 3 (North and South
America) gets the use of 7.100 to 7.300. (Those frequencies are used for
shortwave broadcasting elsewhere.)

Adopting the frequency allocations used by the rest of the world is not
necessarily a good answer for us here in the US. The fact is that there
are a LOT of us here. If we tried to adopt the European bandplan here,
the low end of 40 would be hopelessly overcrowded with CW and digital
signals, and the segment from 7050 to 7100 would be empty (it's used for
voice in other parts of the world, but US hams aren't allowed to use
voice modes there).

The current QRP calling frequency was chosen to avoid the heavy DXing
(mostly very QRO) at the low end of the band. If we were to move QRP
elsewhere, we would experience a lot more interference from the big guns.

Canada, of course, gets caught with conflicting interests. On the one
hand, they want to set up their bandplan to avoid areas of heavy US usage
(thus Canadians are allowed to operate in voice modes in parts of the HF
bands where US operators are not); on the other hand, they have to
peacefully coexist with their neighbors south of the border.

In the particular case of the digital allocations in Canada, I believe
they would be well advised NOT to adopt this proposal. Presumably this
proposal happened because of pressure from the phone operators to get at
the 7050-7100 segment, which pushes other modes farther down the band.
Although it would accomplish that, it would have devastating effects on
QRP operation in North America, including Canadian QRP operators (who
presumably contact the US much more often than Europe or other parts of
the world).

The best solution would be for the 40 meter band to be 300KHz
wide for the entire world. But that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
The US proposed a wider world-wide 40 meter allocation at the last WARC,
but there was no significant support for it, and lots of opposition from
broadcasters. Unfortunately for us, the 39 meter SW band is one of the
most useful and popular ones, as it allows reliable coverage of a
500-1500 kilometer area on a daily and nightly basis. (Of course, that's
why it's a popular ham band as well.)


Search QRP-L Archives

[ QRP-L Archive | ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 ]

---------

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 on Fri Jun 02 2000 - 11:28:29 EDT

kd4ab@kd4ab.org