[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Frequency Conservation

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Frequency Conservation
From: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:03:01 -0700
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>


On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:20:51 -0000, "K0HB " <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>

>Including the auto-robots now held in a corral at 3620-3635?  Will they now
>get a 15kHz "reservation" somewhere in 3525-3600?  That would amount to 20%
>of the CW space available to Generals which would become at risk to their
>mindless 'brrp, brrp, brrp".  (There's a reason they were herded up into
>that remote spot in the band.)
>As an aside, it is a measure of the FCC's lack of self-awareness of their
>own regs that they didn't bother to amend §97.221(b) as part of the R&O.

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------

I'll defer to someone else on that question. I have no experience with
those allocations. If the FCC has ignored them, they need to correct
the error.

Personally, I don't like any truly automatic stations in any HF/MF
band. If the FCC eliminates them entirely, no tears will be shed here.
If an actual operator were required to be present to manually activate
the auto-response on a case-by-case basis, I'd have no objection.

Bill, W6WRT
CQ-Contest mailing list

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