[CQ-Contest] 160m DX window dead?

[tombaugh]

All fine and dandy up until the last statement....
"(Riley Hollingsworth says bandplans ARE enforceable BTW)."
A Band Plan is just a BAND PLAN not a mandatory, regulated allocation.
This is the first I've heard this scenario.
Although I may be all for it... somebody better tell the rest of the country
and the world.
Need to send a memo to everyone with a license?
Better yet.. re-test everyone to make sure they "really" understand.
Sorry about the cynicism... not usually me but...

Tom Baugh
AE9B
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Tippett <btippett at alum.mit.edu>160m DX window dead?


>
>         I'll answer a few of your questions but am speaking for myself
> and not the committee, which was chaired by K5UR:
(SNIP)
>         Contest windows are another issue which is governed by individual
> contest sponsors.  It is my PERSONAL opinion that windows in contests
should
> be abolished because they are so abused (not by USA but by DX) and are a
> very poor use of spectrum in very crowded contests.  In the most recent
> CQ 160 CW Contest, probably 99% of the DX stations I worked were NOT
> in the 1830-1835 window recommended by CQ...and I believe this was also my
> experience from Colorado.  Again, this is my personal opinion only and the
> committee chose to defer this issue to individual contest sponsors.
>
>         I believe the proposed bandplan solves the major problem on 160
> (which is wideband/narrowband mode separation) while being least
disruptive
> to established practices...let's hope the FCC will enforce it!  (Riley
> Hollingsworth says bandplans ARE enforceable BTW).
>
>                                                 73,  Bill  W4ZV
>
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
>


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com