[CQ-Contest] Reply to: Comparing Apples to Basketballs - Let'schange the...

Ted Bryant w4nz at comcast.net
Mon Apr 4 22:34:11 EDT 2005

I think Bill,AA4LR is thinking in the right direction re: the FCC. (don't
think I agree any mode anywhere, though.)

Geographical advantages are one thing, and they undeniably exist, but not
having access to all the available frequencies is entirely a different
matter, IMHO.  Before we try to level the playing field, how about letting
everyone have access to the WHOLE playing field?

Exactly why is it now we have to have "US" and "foreign" phone sub-bands? We
seem to co-exist rather well on cw.

73,Ted W4NZ

|-----Original Message-----
|From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
|[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Bill Coleman
|Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:23 PM
|To: Cqtestk4xs at aol.com
|Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
|Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Reply to: Comparing Apples to Basketballs -
|Let'schange the...
|On Apr 4, 2005, at 8:46 AM, Cqtestk4xs at aol.com wrote:
|> Or just state in the rules that all QSOs must take
|> place above 14.150, 21.200, etc.
|> .............and especially, above 7150.  We in the US are at a real
|> disadvantage on that one.
|What we really need is to amend the FCC rules so that any mode is
|allowed anywhere, just as it is in virtually every other part of the
|world. This would completely eliminate the Canadian advantage.
|Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
|Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
|             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
|CQ-Contest mailing list
|CQ-Contest at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list