[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Frequency Conservation

To: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Frequency Conservation
From: Zack Widup <w9sz@prairienet.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:10:38 -0500 (CDT)
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
At least we make QSO's totally devoid of content that only last a few 
seconds.  Listening to the average QSO on 20m or 75m phone, they go on 
for hours with QSO's totally devoid of content.  ;-)

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> > non-contesters view our exchanges as equally devoid of 
> > content and therefore given your logic, contesting is a waste 
> > of spectrum that could be better filled with awesome hi-fi 
> > audio transmissions coast to coast.
> If you want "awesome hi-fi audio" take it to the broadcast bands. 
> Amateur radio is a communications service where "communications 
> quality" not hi-fi is the standard.  Six and ten KHz response  
> voice signals are like excrement in a punch bowl.  Those who 
> produce such should be banned from polite company - and banished 
> to some microwave band where there are 10s of MHz for them to 
> fill. 

Fine, just keep them out of the weak-signal parts of the microwave bands! 
Some of us use them.  In fact, there was some activity around here this 
weekend in the Microwave Sprint.

> Non-contesters may view contesters' exchanges (and DX exchanges) 
> as devoid of content but the competition to work the farthest 
> or the greatest number of stations goes back to the very first 
> amateur radio activities (before even traffic handling, etc.). 
> 73, 
>    ... Joe, W4TV 

73, Zack W9SZ

CQ-Contest mailing list

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