To: | vhfcontesting@contesting.com, vhf-contest-proposal@arrl.org |
---|---|
Subject: | [VHFcontesting] comments on proposed VHF+ rules changes |
From: | Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com> |
Date: | Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:37:42 -0700 |
List-post: | <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com> |
Dear proposal committee, As someone who has only participated in two June contests grand-total after being invited to a friendly multi-op station (W0KVA - THANKS GUYS), and who would like to now build a good rover station -- I'm one of those people you're claiming you want to attract. I thought I'd send a few comments about the proposed changes. From my analysis, the proposed changes do not meet the stated goals of the committee. Has anyone else noticed this? The proposal is not well thought out, and I have doubts that the reasons stated are really being addressed. There are also many folks saying the comment period feels "rushed" -- what's the hurry? I contest in Colorado. We simply don't have the population density out here that other areas enjoy. EVERY BAND AND EVERY CONTACT IS INTERESTING. Adding a band is a BIG DEAL for ANY station out here. People still congratulate each other on "getting a new band working". I'm sure many in rural areas feel the same way. With the current rules -- we all feel we still have challenges to work for. New rigs and stations to build and test. Things to try with antennas in the microwave bands. Take away the upper bands and where's the challenge to learn and grow? The loss of bands during the "big" June contest and the changes in the rover rules are both NEGATIVES which simply don't need to be done. Once an Amateur out here operates a basic VHF/UHF station, the only thing left to do is a) build more bands into your station, b) go rover. You're going to be talking to the same ten people next year anyway, so why not do both? When you mix the loss of bands in the June contest and the changes to the rover rules, there will be virtually no motivation left to build a rover station. I would love to build a nice rover station (something that can literally take years to do) but if the rules change and take away all motivation for roving, what's the point? With the current rules, at least at the multi-op site we could try to lash together some microwave gear and send me or another guy "over to the next mountain" and try to work it... taking that away above 2.4 is also counter-productive. BUT MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE FOLLOWING: As far as taking bands away from the June contest, it seems VERY suspicious that the League would EVER sanction taking bands away from a contest that is on such unused bands. Why donate to the Spectrum Defense Fund if the contest managers are going to clip bands off of the largest contest of the summer season above VHF, thus DISCOURAGING people from USING them? That seems very very wrong. With the pressure of unlicensed devices into 2.4 and 5.8 GHz already, taking ANY of these bands away from ANY contest seems horrendously counter-productive and completely against what the League itself stands for. Directors, are you really allowing this? I'm very concerned about the big picture -- VHF+ is ALL under frequency allocation pressure. We can't stop being vigilant about the VHF+ bands while we fight BPL on HF. The front needs to be unified. Our contests should do everything possible to encourage operation on ALL bands above 6m MORE THAN ONCE A YEAR. It's virtually impossible to find another ham above 70cm out here (other than a couple of 1.2 GHz FM repeaters) except during contest season. We need as much activity as we can get. The only part of the proposal that seems sound is in ATTRACTING new contesters by creating categories that people without microwave gear can participate in. Honey is good. Demotivating or discouraging operators we already have operating microwave gear out here -- which is effectively what most of the other proposed changes do -- is just silly and shortsighted. Both from the "fun" standpoint and from the overall spectrum management goals of the League. I would ask the contest managers to please reconsider any action which would cause there to be LESS activity above UHF during any contest for any reason. I would also ask the League Directors to make it vitally clear to contest managers that contest rules should reflect the spectrum preservation goals of the League itself. Removing bands does a) not attract new operators to the contest, and b) doesn't send the right message in general to the people that want our spectrum. My $0.02 from here, Nate Duehr, nate@natetech.com - WY0X _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [VHFcontesting] Interesting comments from W3ZZ, John Geiger |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [VHFcontesting] comments on proposed VHF+ rules changes, N3AWS |
Previous by Thread: | [VHFcontesting] Re: For you 432 experts......PROBLEM SOLVED THANKS, David Hinton |
Next by Thread: | [VHFcontesting] Comments on proposed VHF+ rules changes, John Maxwell |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |