My best DX and most memorable contact last year was working K1WHS on 1296.1
with 10 watts. And I make plenty of contacts. I just uploaded over 45,000
HF contest Qs (10 years worth) to LoTW in December.
I'm glad our founding fathers didn't give up on the underutilized West.
Doug K4LY Inman SC 160M- 10 GHz ex-W0AH W2CRS
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:00 PM, <vhfcontesting-request@contesting.com>wrote:
> Send VHFcontesting mailing list submissions to
> vhfcontesting@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> vhfcontesting-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> vhfcontesting-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of VHFcontesting digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: [VHF] Use It or Lose It (Les Rayburn)
> 2. Re: [VHF] Use It or Lose It (Les Rayburn)
> 3. Use It or Lose It (Radioman)
> 4. Re: [VHF] Use It or Lose It (James Hayes)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:55:15 -0600
> From: "Les Rayburn" <les@highnoonfilm.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] Use It or Lose It
> To: <vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu>, "VHF Contesting Reflector"
> <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <5A207D943341432A869DAED37096A237@LesN1LFPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> It seems clear that another assault on our frequencies is coming. I'd be
> willing to bet my next paycheck that the ARRL will cease this opportunity
> to
> drum up contributions to the Spectrum Defense Fund, and fight any such move
> tooth and nail. This "tried and true" approach may succeed, but if so, what
> will really be gained?
>
> Instead, I propose another course of action.
>
> Instead of entering into bitter legal combat with corporate giants, why not
> negotiate with both corporate interests and Congress instead? I'd submit
> that there is so little activity above 1.2ghz as to make the impact of the
> loss of these bands unnoticeable to the amateur population outside the
> members of these mailing lists. Even the majority of VHF Men wouldn't
> directly mourn the loss.
>
> If instead of fighting to retain these highly underutilized bands, let's
> look at what negotiating a settlement might offer:
>
> In exchange for all amateur allocations above 1.2ghz (with perhaps a small
> allocation at 10ghz) we could ask for:
>
> 1.) Swift passage of legislation similar to PRB-1 that would allow
> reasonable accommodation of amateur radio antennas, even those who live in
> HOA situations.
>
> 2.) Legislative protection from any future encroachment on current amateur
> radio allocations.
>
> 3.) An increased commitment towards resolving interference issues that
> affect amateur radio.
>
> 4.) Allocation of spectrum on LF and MF ranges that are not nearly as
> attractive to industry, and of greater interest to the majority of
> amateurs.
>
> Some would argue that such an approach to "spectrum defense" would make
> more
> sense in the long term, and that the gains to amateur radio would be far
> greater. Alas, it won't serve the professional fundraisers who seem to have
> the loudest voice in Newington these days, nor will it please those who
> always prefer mortal combat to reasonable solutions, but the essence of
> true
> leadership is in plotting the wisest course, not bending to the rule of the
> mob--or the voices of a well-heeled few.
>
> 73,
>
> Les Rayburn, N1LF
> EM63nf
> 121 Mayfair Park
> Maylene, AL 35114
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:10:41 -0600
> From: "Les Rayburn" <les@highnoonfilm.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] Use It or Lose It
> To: "Crownhaven" <crownhaven@bellsouth.net>
> Cc: Keith Morehouse <w9rm@yahoo.com>, VHF Contesting Reflector
> <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>, vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
> Message-ID: <D633D2EE389B4A38876C4DAE54E5E7C5@LesN1LFPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
>
> Steve,
>
> I wondered how long it would take for someone to bring up Chamberlin. Good
> Lord...
>
> Corporate giants are hardly Nazi's--and your facts are simply in error.
>
> It is possible to craft legislation that would be difficult to nearly
> impossible to change on the whim of a politician. Take arms control for
> example. In the wake of 9/11 many would have eagerly rushed forward to
> building, testing, and deploying nuclear 'Bunker Buster" weapons, but well
> crafted legislation made that all but impossible--even with a tremendous
> amount of political will and public opinion being widely in favor of it.
>
> So instead of wasting our time on a futile battle for every inch of ground,
> why not use the time remaining to us to craft an effective compromise? Why
> not help to shape our own fate, instead of waiting for others to define it.
> Sure, you can wage legal and political battles and make it difficult for
> the
> wireless providers to get what they want/need for awhile, but the cause is
> doomed. Hams simply will not enjoy this spectrum forever. I'm not even sure
> we have a right to try. What have we done with it?
>
> My comment about EMCOMM simply reflects that reality as well. Each passing
> year, our wireless networks are increasingly "hardened" to withstand
> disasters and sudden spikes in traffic. Widespread regional failures of all
> telecommunications will be less and less of a problem with each passing
> year. In ten years, I imagine that they'll be all but unheard of. When/if
> that happens, how much clouts will hams have then?
>
> That's another reason why we need to act now to hammer out something long
> term.
>
>
> Steve--if you have another solution I'm all ears. But fighting for every
> inch of ground will only doom us to failure. Our "lands" will be as small
> as
> the Native American reservations are today. This isn't gun control, because
> the vast majority of American's own guns. An even greater number support
> our
> constitutional right to own them. But most folks are not hams. You have no
> constitutional right to spectrum. You are a member of a small, special
> interest hobbyist group. Fortunately for all of us, it's one that is useful
> from time to time. But don't overestimate your usefulness, or the strength
> of your position. You're holding a pair, not a full house.
>
> 73,
>
> Les Rayburn, N1LF
> EM63nf
> 121 Mayfair Park
> Maylene, AL 35114
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Crownhaven" <crownhaven@bellsouth.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 7:22 PM
> To: "Les Rayburn" <les@highnoonfilm.com>
> Cc: "Keith Morehouse" <w9rm@yahoo.com>; <vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu>; "VHF
> Contesting Reflector" <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHF] Use It or Lose It
>
> > I disagree Les. No good deed goes unpunished. I think industry would be
> > astonished and find us weak. They have no scruples, morals, ethics. It
> > is all about the share price. You could make an agreement with the devil
> > tomorrow and they would throw it out the window as soon as they decided
> it
> > didn't benefit them anymore.
> >
> > I see this kind of like I see gun control. If you give them an inch,
> they
> > want a mile. If you give them a foot, they want ten miles. The same
> > thing would start happening with the spectrum issues. There is no truth
> > on the hill. It is all about money and greed. If you have something
> they
> > want, you have to be prepared to fight and fight hard for it.
> Appeasement
> > never works. Neville Chamberlain would have told you that. And someone
> > else out there right now is finding out the same thing.
> >
> > Why do you say our EMCOMM value has peaked?????? That was an interesting
> > comment.
> >
> > Steve, N4JQQ, EM55
> >
> > Les Rayburn wrote:
> >> It's a widely held viewpoint that compromise never works, and that only
> >> conflict solves problems. Unfortunately, history doesn't really support
> >> that argument.
> >>
> >> The key part of my suggestion is that we negotiate now, while we still
> >> have enough valuable spectrum to make compromise worthwhile to our
> >> adversaries, while we have enough value as an emergency communications
> >> asset to give us political leverage, and our only effective lobbying
> >> voice (The ARRL) has enough membership to provide a deterrent to legal
> >> action.
> >>
> >> Our two primary objectives in the negotiations would be legislation to
> >> protect the remainder of our spectrum from future encroachment, and
> >> reasonable accommodation of amateur antennas to allow us to continue
> >> pursuing our hobby. A third would be to seek "replacement" spectrum in
> >> the LF and MF ranges.
> >>
> >> If we were successful in obtaining those objectives, I'd consider that a
> >> fair trade for the spectrum we enjoy above 1.2ghz.
> >>
> >> Let's face facts, no matter the amount of donations to the Spectrum
> >> Defense Fund, a protracted conflict is almost certainly doomed to
> >> ultimate failure. The pressure for spectrum shows no end in sight, or
> >> replacement for the resources. Given that fact, commercial enterprises
> >> will always be able to outspend us--and eventually their voices will be
> >> heard.
> >>
> >> Our value as an EMCOMM partner has peaked--and our numbers continue to
> >> shrink overall. We're fast becoming a very expensive, special interest
> >> group of only limited value to our fellow citizens.
> >>
> >> "Fighting" is going to be futile. Meaningful compromise with legislative
> >> protection of our spectrum is our best hope for the future.
> >>
> >> Perhaps with fewer bands to choose from, we'll have more success
> >> attracting hams onto the VHF/UHF bands that remain.
> >>
> >> I fear our discussion is in vain, regardless. The ARRL's primary focus
> is
> >> charted not by it's membership, but by professional fundraisers, who
> >> guide most non-profits these days. Fulfilling the objectives of the
> >> organization are secondary to raising money-and this issue will be no
> >> exception. Calls and mailings will pour forth from Newington sounding
> the
> >> battle call for the "Spectrum Defense Fund". Protracted legal battles
> >> will ensue, and our the crisis will be milked for every dime possible.
> >> The specter of threats to the HF bands will be raised too, no doubt.
> >>
> >> In the end, this will amount to a tempest in a teacup, and hams will
> lose
> >> our microwave spectrum. And with it, any stature we have remaining with
> >> Congress. We'll be seen for what we largely are; obstructionists who
> >> place our selfish desire for unused spectrum above the public good. Our
> >> enemies will paint us as "grumpy old men" of limited value---and in the
> >> end, we'll lose much more than we could have likely retained through
> >> compromise.
> >>
> >> What I propose is simple. Draft and extend a meaningful compromise that
> >> gives up the minimum amount of spectrum possible, while obtaining the
> >> best future position for the hobby. Understanding that everything is a
> >> negotiation, we might suggest all bands above 10ghz, along with the 3
> and
> >> 5ghz bands.
> >>
> >> If we position ourselves as reasonable men, willing to sacrifice for the
> >> good of all, we will be better able to defend ourselves in the future,
> no
> >> matter the outcome. We'll make it harder for our enemies to paint us as
> >> being unwilling to listen to reason, and unbendable to compromise.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >> Les Rayburn, N1LF
> >> EM63nf
> >> 121 Mayfair Park
> >> Maylene, AL 35114
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Les Rayburn, N1LF
> >> EM63nf
> >> 121 Mayfair Park
> >> Maylene, AL 35114
> >>
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------
> >> From: "Keith Morehouse" <w9rm@yahoo.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:12 PM
> >> To: <vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu>
> >> Subject: Re: [VHF] Use It or Lose It
> >>
> >>> With spectrum being worth millions (if not billions) per MHz, don't you
> >>> think compromise might just keep the commercial entities coming back
> for
> >>> more and more until there's nothing left ?
> >>>
> >>> It's been proven time and time again that more times then not,
> >>> compromise will lead to a total loss of whatever it is you're
> >>> compromising on.
> >>>
> >>> What's "limited use" to you might be very important to someone else.
> >>>
> >>> W9RM
> >>>
> >>> *************************************
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Les Rayburn <les@highnoonfilm.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I think we gain more by painting ourselves as reasonable stewards of
> the
> >>> spectrum, and recognize that our own use of the frequencies is very
> >>> limited. Instead of fighting tooth and nail to hold onto them, why not
> >>> reasonably negotiate a settlement that provides hams with a better
> >>> ability to utilize and enjoy the bands were occupancy rates are higher?
> >>> Especially if such a negotiation leads to long term protection of the
> >>> spectrum we now occupy?
> >>> ------
> >>> Submissions: vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
> >>> Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@w6yx.stanford.edu
> >>> Human list administrator: vhf-approval@w6yx.stanford.edu
> >>> List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
> >> ------
> >> Submissions: vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
> >> Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@w6yx.stanford.edu
> >> Human list administrator: vhf-approval@w6yx.stanford.edu
> >> List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
> > ------
> > Submissions: vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
> > Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@w6yx.stanford.edu
> > Human list administrator: vhf-approval@w6yx.stanford.edu
> > List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:25:46 -0500
> From: Radioman <radioman01@comcast.net>
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Use It or Lose It
> To: "vhfcontesting@contesting.com" <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <25FE9B37-BADF-4CD6-B8BE-41BF6199750E@comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed;
> delsp=yes
>
> >
> >
>
> > Bite your toung newbee,
> > I'm not giving up anything above 1.2, some of the best contacts I've
> > made were above 1.2. What we need to focuse on is the speical
> > interest groups at the ARRL
> >
> > We can fix this issue in congress, and lobby all the stuff ham radio
> > has done in the past for the community.
> >
> > At this point if we start to give in or give some frequencys up when
> > does it stop!
> >
> > Tony
> > NN1D
> >
> > Sent from my iPod
> >
> > On Dec 30, 2009, at 1:55 PM, "Les Rayburn" <les@highnoonfilm.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> It seems clear that another assault on our frequencies is coming.
> >> I'd be
> >> willing to bet my next paycheck that the ARRL will cease this
> >> opportunity to
> >> drum up contributions to the Spectrum Defense Fund, and fight any
> >> such move
> >> tooth and nail. This "tried and true" approach may succeed, but if
> >> so, what
> >> will really be gained?
> >>
> >> Instead, I propose another course of action.
> >>
> >> Instead of entering into bitter legal combat with corporate giants,
> >> why not
> >> negotiate with both corporate interests and Congress instead? I'd
> >> submit
> >> that there is so little activity above 1.2ghz as to make the
> >> impact of the
> >> loss of these bands unnoticeable to the amateur population outside
> >> the
> >> members of these mailing lists. Even the majority of VHF Men wouldn't
> >> directly mourn the loss.
> >>
> >> If instead of fighting to retain these highly underutilized bands,
> >> let's
> >> look at what negotiating a settlement might offer:
> >>
> >> In exchange for all amateur allocations above 1.2ghz (with perhaps
> >> a small
> >> allocation at 10ghz) we could ask for:
> >>
> >> 1.) Swift passage of legislation similar to PRB-1 that would allow
> >> reasonable accommodation of amateur radio antennas, even those who
> >> live in
> >> HOA situations.
> >>
> >> 2.) Legislative protection from any future encroachment on current
> >> amateur
> >> radio allocations.
> >>
> >> 3.) An increased commitment towards resolving interference issues
> >> that
> >> affect amateur radio.
> >>
> >> 4.) Allocation of spectrum on LF and MF ranges that are not nearly as
> >> attractive to industry, and of greater interest to the majority of
> >> amateurs.
> >>
> >> Some would argue that such an approach to "spectrum defense" would
> >> make more
> >> sense in the long term, and that the gains to amateur radio would
> >> be far
> >> greater. Alas, it won't serve the professional fundraisers who seem
> >> to have
> >> the loudest voice in Newington these days, nor will it please those
> >> who
> >> always prefer mortal combat to reasonable solutions, but the
> >> essence of true
> >> leadership is in plotting the wisest course, not bending to the
> >> rule of the
> >> mob--or the voices of a well-heeled few.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >> Les Rayburn, N1LF
> >> EM63nf
> >> 121 Mayfair Park
> >> Maylene, AL 35114
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> VHFcontesting mailing list
> >> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:45:48 -0500
> From: "James Hayes" <n2yev94@charter.net>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] Use It or Lose It
> To: <vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu>, "VHF Contesting Reflector"
> <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <BC665F83447D47C8BB4B437F404596BC@JamesHayesPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> I Think Les Has a good idea going here, but I also think if we give the
> 'mob' any bit of the spectrum they will continually fight harder for even
> more of our precious frequency allocation.
> Another approach that could benefit all; provided the 'mob' interests were
> only low power, is to share the frequencies such as is with the 70 cm band
> but with the change of having amateur radio licensees remain as primary to
> all other users or licensees.
> Just my 2 cents worth....
>
> James Hayes, N2YEV
> FN34fo
> Peru, NY
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Les Rayburn" <les@highnoonfilm.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 1:55 PM
> To: <vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu>; "VHF Contesting Reflector"
> <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] Use It or Lose It
>
> > It seems clear that another assault on our frequencies is coming. I'd be
> > willing to bet my next paycheck that the ARRL will cease this opportunity
> > to
> > drum up contributions to the Spectrum Defense Fund, and fight any such
> > move
> > tooth and nail. This "tried and true" approach may succeed, but if so,
> > what
> > will really be gained?
> >
> > Instead, I propose another course of action.
> >
> > Instead of entering into bitter legal combat with corporate giants, why
> > not
> > negotiate with both corporate interests and Congress instead? I'd submit
> > that there is so little activity above 1.2ghz as to make the impact of
> > the
> > loss of these bands unnoticeable to the amateur population outside the
> > members of these mailing lists. Even the majority of VHF Men wouldn't
> > directly mourn the loss.
> >
> > If instead of fighting to retain these highly underutilized bands, let's
> > look at what negotiating a settlement might offer:
> >
> > In exchange for all amateur allocations above 1.2ghz (with perhaps a
> small
> > allocation at 10ghz) we could ask for:
> >
> > 1.) Swift passage of legislation similar to PRB-1 that would allow
> > reasonable accommodation of amateur radio antennas, even those who live
> in
> > HOA situations.
> >
> > 2.) Legislative protection from any future encroachment on current
> amateur
> > radio allocations.
> >
> > 3.) An increased commitment towards resolving interference issues that
> > affect amateur radio.
> >
> > 4.) Allocation of spectrum on LF and MF ranges that are not nearly as
> > attractive to industry, and of greater interest to the majority of
> > amateurs.
> >
> > Some would argue that such an approach to "spectrum defense" would make
> > more
> > sense in the long term, and that the gains to amateur radio would be far
> > greater. Alas, it won't serve the professional fundraisers who seem to
> > have
> > the loudest voice in Newington these days, nor will it please those who
> > always prefer mortal combat to reasonable solutions, but the essence of
> > true
> > leadership is in plotting the wisest course, not bending to the rule of
> > the
> > mob--or the voices of a well-heeled few.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Les Rayburn, N1LF
> > EM63nf
> > 121 Mayfair Park
> > Maylene, AL 35114
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
> End of VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 84, Issue 26
> *********************************************
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|