[qrp-canada] Reply from RAC bandplan committee

[Robert MacKenzie]

Again fyi, here is the reply from the RAC committee,

Bob VA3RKM

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

Our committee is actually AGAINST encouraging voice below 3600.  Have a look at the second
paragraph of the introduction.  This idea came not from us but from a Region 2 bandplan, and
our RAC President and VP-International are going to present a support a strong position paper
from us at the September Region 2 meeting urging that this provision be eliminated. It is our
present understanding that the idea emerged because of limited frequency privileges in certain
other Region 2 countries.  The language in our note, which we will clarify and strengthen if
necessary IF this provision survives against our advice, is intended to preclude Canada-to-Canada
contacts and limit contacts to ones including (and, I would add, initiated by) these other countries.
This should drastically limit any such activity here.

The abbreviated coverage in the introduction emphasizes growth in digital modes.  However,
members of our committee operate both CW and digital in those regions.  More than half the
over 100,000 QSOs in my computerized log (starting 1992) are in CW; about a fifth of the CW
QSOS are on 80M.  Our committee is pledged to be even-handed with respect to various amateur
interest areas, but we are well aware of CW issues on 80M and elsewhere.

Your comment and others along the same line help reinforce our position.  However, we
and RAC are convinced, and what we hope is that other Region 2 countries will agree
and that voice below 3600 will disappear from the Region 2 bandplan after the September meeting.

Feel free to pass this information along to other contacts you may have.

73,

Jim, VE1JF
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://qrp-canada.com/pipermail/members_qrp-canada.com/attachments/20070812/29074716/attachment.html