CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Feb 04 QST op-ed article

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Feb 04 QST op-ed article
From: "Mark Beckwith" <mark@concertart.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:43:58 -0600
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
KI9A steered us toward the February Op-Ed in QST proposing phone contest
subbands.  I read it and the author seems to be about as fair and balanced
as possible given the volatility of the topic.

So are all you phone guys out there giving us a bad name or what?  As the
author correctly observes "CW operators are a little more savvy about such
things" - but he is, of course, missing a couple key points:

1. CW signals are narrower than phone signals.

2. We seem to have enough room for our operations without taking up the
entire CW subband (although in the good old days domestic contest CW never
strayed below 25, so activity has increased).

So help me out here (since I am not a real serious phone contester) have
phone contests gotten to the point where the contest requires all of the
entire phone subbands?

Or is the guy who is claiming that in QST just not shooting straight?

Why NOT limit contests on 20M to below 14.297?

Please don't reply stating all the standard responses we hear all the time
when somebody curses phone contests.  I am NOT the enemy, and I already know
the arguments.  I wasn't born yesterday.

Mark, N5OT


---------------------------------------------------------------
    The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!
       http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
---------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>