Take look at page 98 of the 2/04 QST.... More non-contesters wanting to limit us to less than 100kc of 40!! Plus the other bands. This guy is looking for our views on this proposal. Wonder if he also
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kharker@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:55:18 -0600
Taken to its logical conclusion, you could subdivide the phone (or CW) bands by activity type (and hhey why not - let's subdivide by language, too) and have basically one channel for each activity. I
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 ar
That would work fine for smaller contests like the Sprint, NAQP, state QSO parties, etc. Of course one can argue that these contests already do this on their own naturally (activity tends to cluster
I'm not sure what the "standard responses" are; certainly there are "standard" complaints to which, eventually, will come standard responses. Contest-free zones certainly qualify as a "standard" desi
(I find it interesting nobody's mentioned Ward's excellent article about log checking - which was far easier to find than the op-ed<grin>!) On one hand... how many reserved segments can we handle bef
How about we change nothing. So what if a few weekends out of the year find the bands congested because of major contests? Toooooo Bad! Should he have the right to the expectation of a clear frequenc
I cannot believe that we are giving this idea any thought of being the way to go for *any* contests. I am tired of hearing this sort of thing from non-contesters all the time, and I'm increasingly di
Quite simply, there are plenty of "contest free zones." They are the "WARC" bands and the "opposite" mode. Even during CQWW Phone or ARRL DX Phone, 17 and 12 meters are relatively lightly used. 17 i
There would be less SSB contest activity pressure on the bands if USA stations were permitted to operate down to 3600, 7100, 14100, etc... -- The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland! THE
"Mike Gilmer" <n2mg@eham.net> wrote: "the contentious nature of the phone bands (both during and outside of contests) causes many (not just contesters) to operate there only casually, or avoid them t
Sorry to be entering this thread without first reading the article. Nevertheless, it's easy to pick up what appears on page 98 of QST from reading the thread. Well, it's easy to say that this is the
My conclusion is that we need more contests. -- 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/~james
Yep-this is why I posted originally. I did email the author, with no response, about "limiting" nets, skeds & ragchewers from operating in the "contest" zone--assuming someone did try to establish a
Author: "Kenneth E. Harker" <kharker@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:04:28 -0600
Maybe in addition to someone writing an excellent rebuttal to the "contest free zone" nonsense, we also need someone to write an article for QST aimed at the general HF audience about operating phone
The U.S. phone band allocations are smaller than the rest of the world's phone bands to give non-Ws a "U.S.-Free Zone." I'm grateful that we have CW bands (Non-Phone Zones). Famous quote: "Contesting
<snip> There would be less SSB contest activity pressure on the bands if USA stations were permitted to operate down to 3600, 7100, 14100, etc... <snip> Perhaps, but then the pressure (especially out
The de facto band splits between phone, digital and CW modes for non-USA countries are well established in practice (and, on 40m, well-abused during phone contests!). While it's difficult to tell in
Let's face it, SSB operations during a contest can be a tough thing. This applies to contest and non-contest operators alike. I'll bet just about every SSB contest operator has torn off the headphone
In an amazing effort at predicting the future, everything (I think) that has been said this week in response to the Feb. '04 QST Op-Ed piece was said by me in NCJ, in 1994! I didn't have the original