[VHFcontesting] A suggestion for Limiting MultiOps[was:Asuggestionfor ERP-based Entry Classes]

[Zack Widup]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Kenneth E. Harker wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:54:41AM -0500, Ev Tupis (W2EV) wrote:
> 
> > > Except for the fact that contests are competitions.  They
> > > are not designed to be "spectrum occupiers" to demonstrate
> > > the fact that the bands are being used.
> > 
> > And THAT is a problem (probably where we disagree?).  
> 
> That is the crux of the debate.  Allow me to summarize:
> 
> Ev's position: We should occupy spectrum through radiosport for the sake of 
>                occupying spectrum.
> 
> My position:   We should occupy spectrum through radiosport for the sake of
>                sport.
> 
> I don't find the argument that we should be getting on the air in a contest 
> just for the sake of getting on the air and occupying spectrum all that 
> motivating.  It's like suggesting that I should mow the lawn for the sake 
> of mowing the lawn or I should drive across town for the sake of driving 
> across town.  I mow the lawn because I like the way my yard looks when I'm
> done.  I drive across town because I want to visit Fry's or meet friends 
> for dinner.  I get on the air not just for the sake of being on the air,
> but to engage in the sport of radio contesting, to work DX, to experience 
> new operating modes or challenges, to chat with friends, etc.  I know there 
> are some hams who get on the air simply to be on the air, just as there are
> some hams who like to build things simply to build things - but, I don't
> think most hams are really like that.  If all contesting becomes is using
> spectrum for the sake of using spectrum so that we can prove that we are 
> using spectrum, with no other more intrinsic interest or goal, then it is 
> no longer interesting or worth doing.
> 

I consider both positions to enter in and to be relevant.  We are in
danger of losing a lot of frequencies because vested interests are
throwing money around in hopes of making even more money on "their" new
frequencies.  But I suppose anyone who never used a band above 1296 MHz
and doesn't plan to ever use them couldn't care less if we lose those
bands, and wouldn't and shouldn't complain if a REALLY big threat to our
having that band comes along.

I'm not just a contester but an engineer who likes to play with equipment.
I build it, test it and want to work people with it. I've been making
skeds with people outside the contest times trying for microwave QSO's.
It's quite a thrill to me to even just try to work someone 250 miles away
on 2304 MHz and up, even if we fail.  So the VHF+ contests are peculiar in
that they potentially encourage a LOT of activity on these bands at once,
not just a couple people in the country at a time. So in my book it's a
little of both - I'm on the air on these frequencies, which may to some
small extent help us to keep those bands, but also I'm experimenting,
seeing what limits there are on the equipment and if I can stretch those
limits.  I'd hate to lose those bands because I already have money and
time invested in the equipment for them.  I'd like to add that it doesn't
cost a fortune to get on a microwave band.  Some people seem to think it
costs thousands of dollars per band.  Realistically, I think it cost me a
couple hundred dollars per band at most.  But I'm a good scrounger. YMMV.

You mentioned "new operating modes and challenges" above. Believe me, as
you go up the bands, you meet challenges you've never seen on the lower
frequencies.

By the way, the late photographer Fred Picker (one of the most wonderful
people I've had the pleasure to know) used to say that there are two
reasons you can drive a car - you can drive it to go somewhere or you can
drive it to be right where you are.  When Fred was "cruisin' fer snaps"
(looking for things to photograph) it was always the latter. I probably
picked that habit up from my dad but Fred convinced me it's a good thing
to do once in a while.  If only gas were cheaper.  :-)

73, Zack W9SZ