VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] (VHF Contesting) - how about we get back to having f

To: Jeff Thomas <wa4zko@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] (VHF Contesting) - how about we get back to having fun?
From: Steve Clifford <k4gun.r@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:16:16 -0500
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Zach,

I made one comment on this subject but have stayed quite about it since
then.  My last comment was taken in a way that was not intended and I fear
the same will happen again.  That said, I can't let this one stand.  The
ARRL has made a big mistake in allowing grid circling.  Yes, they boost the
number of QSO's on the microwave bands and I'm sure the ARRL will waive them
around whenever they are trying to defend the amateur spectrum.

But is that really honest?  Should we be using this kind of data to justify
our use of the bands?  Are amateurs using the band so infrequently that the
scores of grid circling crews the biggest argument we have?  If so, I think
our claim to those bands is pretty tenuous.

Now let's say we have plenty of other good arguments as to why cell phone
companies shouldn't be given the microwave bands currently used by the
amateur community.  What happens when congress or the FCC finally figures
out what a scam the grid circling crews are really pulling?  It will not
matter that we have so many other good arguments.  They will focus upon that
one practice to minimize the amateur use.  They will hold it up as evidence
that we are squandering our allocation.  That will become the focus if they
ever figure it out.

I don't want to rely on arguments that have a scam at the core.  If we as
amateurs can't justify having our parts of the microwave bands without
throwing in the contrived contacts from parking lot distances, then we don't
deserve it at all.

I submit this respectful of those who disagree.

Steve
K4GUN/R

On Sun,
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:44:28 -0600
From: Zack Widup
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Use it or lose it debate.
To: vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
Cc: vhfcontesting@contesting.com


I kinda hate to say this, but Frank, you seem to care little about anything
else except this captive Rover deal. Every topic posted here does not
revolve around it. The captive Rover thing is only a tiny part of VHF+
operation that takes place and wasn't even related to the topic that you
responded to. If anything, the Rovers you refer to would even give us more
in our defense (or offense) regarding our frequencies, because they are
using them. The FCC and Congress could care less about who Rovers are or
what they do in contests. All they care about is whether there is activity
in that band or not.

I have only had about a dozen people at most around here to work on the
bands 2304 and up. I've made numerous "pilgrimages" to a nearby hilltop to
work some of the few down by St. Louis, and have succeeded with some but not
others. So we keep trying. This is all outside of contest periods - usually
weekend mornings or when the Hepburn tropo index looks promising.  So, just
like the NRA of years ago, "I do my part."
:-)

73, Zack W9SZ




_______________________________________________
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

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