[VHFcontesting] REMINDER:CQWW VHF Contest and CU2QSO Pioneers

[Zack Widup]

I have nothing against the CU2QSO approach.  The only thing about it is
that it uses FM packet (that's true, correct?).  FM packet is inherently
less sensitive than weak-signal modes.  So if I hear and manage to work a
guy that's S0 on CW (just above the ESP level, let's say), then there's no
way I'd have been able to work him on CU2QSO.

73, Zack W9SZ

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Mike (KA5CVH) Urich wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Warren Walsh" <mcw1wjw9 at optonline.net>
> 
> Maybe the ARRL Contest Desk needs to look at this again...
> 
> 
> Mike wrote
> 
> I've been trying to get warm and fuzzy with this concept.  In some ways I
> don't see it much different than programming a voice recorder with CQ etc /
> etc.  As I see it your initial contact *_HAS_* to be keyboard to keyboard
> with no digipeaters involved.  If that is truly the case then I believe that
> it does fall under the rules as acceptable.   That being said, why don't we
> take this to the next level (or actually down a level)  and just put a voice
> id'er on a FM mobile rig and do the same thing on 146.580?  Now this brings
> up another can of worms.   According to the rules you can only operate one
> station on a band at a time.  So if you were beaconing on 2 meters either
> with CU2QSO or a simple voice id'er you can *_NOT_* have any other 2 meter
> transmitters on the air ... Correct?
> 
> Mike Urich, KA5CVH