Howdy
During our rover effort in 2003, we encountered all kinds of issues with
calling frequencies on all bands.
In the St. Louis area, my contest partner attempted to move stations from
band to band and move them to 144.212 Mhz.
In several instances, he was told the other station would not move off of
.200 The reasoning was that
if they spread out, no one will be able to find them and they are going to
stay put on .200
This was a consistent thing that year for most of the stations we worked
down there.
Then, Sunday morning up in Milwaukee, things were quiet and we made some
calls on 144.203 and
several hams complained about contesting on the calling frequency. They
were not participating in the contest, but obviously they
were trying to make contacts on 2m and listening. Could they be people who
are opposed to contesting and just there to complain
as so many do? Could these same people be the ones pushing for no
contesting on the calling freqs?
I completely agree that there are geographical challenges with changes in
any of the rules. I do not want to beat
a dead horse with the rover circle/grid dance issue, however in a rural
area, that might be the only way to make contacts.
If you change the rule because of an issue in a high population area, you
can very easily penalize the rural areas. Furthermore, what if I am on
144.201? Many of the logging programs will show the frequency for every
QSO if you have rig control. Will this rule force everyone to have rig
control with their contest logging
software? I see any changes to the calling freq rule a waste of time and
effort.
Unless any proposed rule change(any portion of VHF contesting) encourages
new operators and more activity, it should have little to no support.
Mark
N9UM
At 08:49 AM 6/21/2006, Ron Klimas WZ1V wrote:
>Jim and others, my thoughts about this:
>I don't hear any widespread "abuse" of 144.200 per se during contests here
>in New England. A couple questions to ponder:
>
>1. Who's complaining about this (what geographic area(s) and what's the
>population density of those area(s)?
>note: I've heard contesters in low population areas say if you don't call
>CQ on 144.2 you don't work anyone!
>I've also heard the other 3 hams living within 100 miles of that steadfast
>144.2 contester say they feel shut out.
>When someone in the Northeast tries this, they have 100 other hams living
>within 100 miles applying peer-pressure to discourage it. Well sort of,
>which brings the next question to mind.
>
>2. Define 144.200. We're using non-channelized modes here, SSB and CW. Does
>it matter if someone tries to monopolize 144.198? How about 142.202? I can
>tell you there are several high power stations near me doing this every
>contest! It makes 144.200 as unusable as if they were right on it.
>
>3. Define abuse. Is it abuse if someone stays on 144.200 for more than 10
>minutes? How about for more than an hour? More than a day? I find it
>productive to spend some time calling on 144.200, especially on Sunday
>night to grab the ones who never turn their dials! I find several others
>doing this. If everyone gets their 10 minutes to an hour to play, is it a
>problem or is it actually beneficial?
>
>4. If the committee thinks it's a problem, what would you do about it? Is
>this something that's even enforceable? Even if you decide to outlaw
>144.2, would it do any good? Would it do more harm than good? Would it stop
>the folks on 144.198 or .202? How about the people who are convinced rules
>are meant to broken? If you can't enforce it what's the point?
>
>Personally, if I were tasked to do something about this:
>I'd lean towards adding language like "the exclusive use of 144.200 and
>it's guard bands should be discouraged".
>And what about 432.100? 222.100? 50.125?
>-73, Ron WZ1V, FN31
>
>At 01:07 AM 6/21/2006, Jim Worsham wrote:
> >Hello everyone. I am the Southeastern Division representative to the
> >recently formed VHF UHF Advisory Committee (VUAC). The VUAC was formed to
> >provide a resource of experienced VHF/UHF/Microwave hams to advise on
> >VHF/UHF/Microwave contesting and related matters. The VUAC has received
> >it's first assignment which I have copied below verbatim:
> >
> >Is there a rationale to change the VHF/UHF contest rules to not allow the
> >use of 144.200 (the 2 meter SSB calling frequency) during ARRL contests?
> >
> > A. Is there sufficient reason for change?
> > B. If not a rules change...is there adequate motivation to take other
> >action? Such as
> > a FAQ page on using calling frequencies during contests, or the
> >creation of a page on
> > "Best Practices" for contest operation on the two meter calling
> >frequency.
> >
> >What I am looking for are rational arguments for or against the question. I
> >am not looking for long diatribes about the evils of the ARRL or whatever
> >your pet peeve is. This is not really my preferred method for getting input
> >on something like this but I couldn't think of any other way to get a quick
> >snapshot of what my constituents think about this. I am mostly interested
> >in input from folks in the Southeastern Division (Florida, Georgia and
> >Alabama). I encourage everyone else to contact their representative on the
> >VUAC and let them know what you think. There is no need to tie up the
> >reflector with this so please respond directly to me. Thanks.
> >
> >73
> >Jim, W4KXY
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >VHFcontesting mailing list
> >VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>_______________________________________________
>VHFcontesting mailing list
>VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|