[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] FW: Frequency Conservation

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] FW: Frequency Conservation
From: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:39:53 -0600
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I would like to know how the robots check to make sure the frequency is
clear before transmitting on top of another ham using the frequency or do
they just fire up like K1MAN? 

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Turner
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:03 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Frequency Conservation



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

------------ 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

CQ-Contest mailing list

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