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

Kenneth E. Harker kharker at cs.utexas.edu
Fri Jan 16 07:55:18 EST 2004

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 05:21:54PM -0500, KI9A at aol.com wrote:
> 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 proposes limiting nets, skeds, ragchewers & pig farmers to 
> a  subband? ;-)

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 mean, why not?  We have:

Wideband SSB
Emergency Net
Digital SSTV
Digital Voice
Phone Patches
etc. etc.

This is the same reason I find DX windows appalling - the moment you start
regulating frequency space by activity, you open the door wide open to
everyone else wanting _their_ activity to be protected, and the logical 
end result is that everyone loses.  DX windows, rag chewing windows - just
say no to windows!

Kenneth E. Harker      "Vox Clamantis in Deserto"      kharker at cs.utexas.edu
University of Texas at Austin                   Amateur Radio Callsign: WM5R
Department of the Computer Sciences          Central Texas DX & Contest Club
Taylor Hall TAY 2.124                         Maintainer of Linux on Laptops
Austin, TX 78712-1188 USA            http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list