VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

[VHFcontesting] Higher bands

To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: [VHFcontesting] Higher bands
From: frank bechdoldt <k3uhf@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 23:18:21 -0800
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
I disagree with Ev.

 

Since the Arrl uses the logs of contesters to demonstrate the band is in use 
when arguing about spectrum, the contest reflector is a relevant place to talk 
about these issues.  In the past several people have tried to end conversations 
on saying its not relevant.   My opinion is that the ARRL misrepresents the 
value of upper band contacts in an effort to justify its cause and it's 
spectrum fund.  I learned this after hashing out the rover issues, but this 
issue is bigger. Even my idea of a solution still allows thgis roving to 
continue.  I hgandle my issue by not sending logs.    

 

Without the deflection or distraction of Rovers , the issue challenges the core 
issues of what it is to be hams. I like the idea of trading all but narrow 
slices of each band that will slightly affect the 10,000 of us who are or are 
thinking about going above 1.3 ghz to benefit the million of us under the 
threat of Antenna restrictions and interference.  

 

The challenge thrown out there and not by me. Is what are we doing with it that 
is productive and not just line of sight QSOs for awards that mean little to 
anyone outside of our sub culture?  If there is something then lets develop it. 
 lets demonstrate it. lets become relevant to people outside of our own group.  
After all relevancy is why the ARRL pays so much attention to the contests and 
members who enjoy the lower bands.  

 

I'm going to present my thoughts and evidence to the sub committee members and 
lobbyists of what really happens for the majority of the high band QSOs, 
someone else needs to show them where I am wrong and why they need all the 
bandwidth on each band to utilize their activity.  

 

Please someone do or demonstrate something that we are proud of, that can be 
done or used constantly by many hams at the same time and takes up more than a 
MHZ. That is the challenge of the future of these bands, or we should trade it 
for lower band security.  How about a 70 mhz expansion?

 

We look to washington DC and we can two sides of many issues who keep attacking 
things with a all or nothing approach.  I commend N1lF's idea as a logical 
approach to solve some bigger issues, without corporate threats on the lowe 
bands may allow for some expansion where wide spread communications is possible 
or economically feasible.  And N1LF quit beating on yourself for trying to find 
a solution/ Right or wrong its an idea that makes things better for ham radio 
as a whole.  

 

k3uhf
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [VHFcontesting] Higher bands, frank bechdoldt <=