> I don't think it can happen via e-mail or reflector alone.
It requires face
> time as well. Just a suggestion, but would it make sense
to find 30 minutes
> at the Topband dinner @ Dayton, to try and put some
structure on the
> debate? Then, roll it out from there?
Jim,
The topband dinner and this reflector are both poor places
to decide the fate of 160.
I was listening to two meters last night, and two no-code
techs were commenting on changes. These no-code techs were
puzzled why the RM failed, and couldn't figure out what the
difference was between 160 and other bands. I was amazed and
educated by listening to them. I thought no-codes would be a
problem, but now I'm of the opinion we will always just have
a small minority who don't want a narrow mode segment and
who want to keep 160 in a bad situation.
The primary value of 160 is not entertaining special
interests. The real value of 160 is rooted in being a short
or medium distance seasonal band, and that is what any plan
should be based on. It should be for the general technical
good of the band, not selective users.
The demand we not have a narrow mode exclusive segment just
for the sake of contests and DXing is actually saying that
people are planning on violating any plan, and actually
proves why we need a rule.
In my mind it's no different at all if a ragchew moves to
1833, if a DXer works a new SSB country there, or if a
contester moves there and works people. Either way it is
just as inconsiderate. No one is special, we either have a
bandplan or we don't.
I see no difference at all between the people mentioned as
problem makers and people on this reflector or at a Topband
dinner who violate the bandplan because they want to.
73 Tom
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|