[CQ-Contest] Feb 04 QST op-ed article

[Bill Coleman]

On Jan 16, 2004, at 8:43 PM, Mark Beckwith wrote:

> 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.

Fair and balanced? He's basically saying that contest operation isn't 
as valuable as other types of amateur activities, so let's restrict it. 
He want's to block off 100 kHz of 80m so guys can get on and talk about 
their various geriatric aliments without having to suffer any contest 
QRM. (OK, so maybe I'm passing judgement here, too. Harumph)

> So are all you phone guys out there giving us a bad name or what?

There just isn't room! SSB signals might be as close as 2 kHz apart 
without completely blowing each other out of the water. CW signals can 
get to 250 Hz and closer. On 20m, with 200 kHz for SSB operation, 
there's only room for about 100 "channels". 100 channels on CW would 
only be 25 kHz.

Plus the fact that Phone contests generate a lot more activity. And 
that's likely to increase as more countries adopt codeless HF license 
classes.

> So help me out here (since I am not a real serious phone contester) 
> have
> phone contests gotten to the point where the contest requires all of 
> the
> entire phone subbands?

Something like NAQP? No. SS, ARRL DX, CQWW, WPX - Yes.

> Or is the guy who is claiming that in QST just not shooting straight?

He says he's a contestor, too, but if he doesn't bother to send in a 
low, even for a small effort, it doesn't count in my book.

> Why NOT limit contests on 20M to below 14.297?

Sure, so long as we reserve 14.150-14.200 for contest-only operation.


Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901