[SECC] Fwd: [CQ-Contest] ARLB007 ARRL Board Adopts Modified Novice Band R...
AB4RU@aol.com
AB4RU@aol.com
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:53:43 EST
--part1_ab.15d09b15.2980a707_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/23/02 10:22:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jpryor@ARCHES.UGA.EDU writes:
> So we are going to lose some of the CW band? Yes, I know we can operate CW
> on the phone band, but in actual fact "expanding the phone band" means the
> CW band loses.
>
> Jay/K4OGG
>
Jay,
If you remember back, I made the prediction that CW bands would soon be under
attack, back when the ARRL supported the lower code requirements, bringing
new hams up to the higher class portion of the spectrum. Not that we had a
chance to prevent it due to the number of people involved, few cared anyway?
I read the article yesterday and started to post it on this reflector but
thought I would be waisting my time. I hope this will be a stronger wake up
call for the CW operators.
My recent concern is the existence of future contesting on many of the ham
bands. After ever major contest, there are an increased number of hams
complaining that their spectrum was violated by the contester in some way,
which the ARRL likes to publish when the FCC gets involved. The increase of
hams have brought more groups to the spectrum that claims constant use of
certain portions of the spectrum, eliminating the contester from using those
frequencies. It appears from articles on the Internet and QST, the FCC is
taking the side of the casual user and not the contester in these cases.
After all, everyone knows the contester is not considerate of the protected
frquencies. I am sure you have experienced what I am talking about. Most of
the time I simply move away to avoid a conflict during a contest, not to
loose contest points by arguing with the band owner/s.
When do we start to care and what can we do? The only idea I have is that we
should claim a frequency spectum that we are going to operate on each band
for contesting and damn eveyone else that wants to use it for something
besides contesting. Just kidding, that would lower us to their level.
Ron
--part1_ab.15d09b15.2980a707_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3>In a message dated 1/23/02 10:22:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, jpryor@ARCHES.UGA.EDU writes:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">So we are going to lose some of the CW band? Yes, I know we can operate CW <BR>
on the phone band, but in actual fact "expanding the phone band" means the <BR>
CW band loses.<BR>
<BR>
Jay/K4OGG<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Jay,<BR>
<BR>
If you remember back, I made the prediction that CW bands would soon be under attack, back when the ARRL supported the lower code requirements, bringing new hams up to the higher class portion of the spectrum. Not that we had a chance to prevent it due to the number of people involved, few cared anyway? I read the article yesterday and started to post it on this reflector but thought I would be waisting my time. I hope this will be a stronger wake up call for the CW operators. <BR>
<BR>
My recent concern is the existence of future contesting on many of the ham bands. After ever major contest, there are an increased number of hams complaining that their spectrum was violated by the contester in some way, which the ARRL likes to publish when the FCC gets involved. The increase of hams have brought more groups to the spectrum that claims constant use of certain portions of the spectrum, eliminating the contester from using those frequencies. It appears from articles on the Internet and QST, the FCC is taking the side of the casual user and not the contester in these cases. After all, everyone knows the contester is not considerate of the protected frquencies. I am sure you have experienced what I am talking about. Most of the time I simply move away to avoid a conflict during a contest, not to loose contest points by arguing with the band owner/s. <BR>
<BR>
When do we start to care and what can we do? The only idea I have is that we should claim a frequency spectum that we are going to operate on each band for contesting and damn eveyone else that wants to use it for something besides contesting. Just kidding, that would lower us to their level. <BR>
<BR>
Ron<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_ab.15d09b15.2980a707_boundary--
--
SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
Submissions: secc@contesting.com
Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com