VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

[VHFcontesting] Trends in VHF/UHF Weak Signal Operations

To: Chris Boone <cboone@earthlink.net>, "vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu" <vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu>, VHF Contesting Reflector <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
Subject: [VHFcontesting] Trends in VHF/UHF Weak Signal Operations
From: Les Rayburn <les@highnoonfilm.com>
Reply-to: les@highnoonfilm.com
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:49:01 -0600
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
It's a complex problem, and like any systemic issue will require a number of approaches to successfully reverse the tide. Grassroots efforts, like the "205 Morning Group", or activity nets are a part of the solution. But I disagree with the notion that we cannot influence policy at the American Radio Relay League. I think the argument isn't that the league should address this issue, it's pretty clear that they must.

Like most non-profits today, the league's policies are highly influenced by professional fund raisers whose role it is to secure funding for the ARRL. This is why you see a number of pages each month in QST devoted to issues like Spectrum Defense, Broadband over Powerlines, etc. While the threats are real enough, there is also an element of public relations involved. Members contribute money when they feel threatened, and the league needs that money to pay for lobbying efforts, salaries, etc.

Our HF bands are not threatened to any great extent by commercial interests. Interference is certainly an issue, but wholesale spectrum grabs are not. On our UHF and microwave bands, however, the situation is very different. Commercial interests would very much like to gobble up more of that spectrum. But if no amateur work is being done on those bands, it will become increasingly difficult for the league to justify the expense involved in defending them.

How many amateurs would really care if we lose our allocation at 3 GHz? At the moment, contributions continue to pour in for Spectrum Defense based largely on principle. Most amateurs view a threat to any of our bands as threat to all---but a tightening economy means that donations will slow down, and become more prioritized until we see a broad recovery. Simply put, "Unless it threatens the bands, I care about, I'm keeping my money" .

Our limited activity on the bands above 432 account for nearly all the amateur activity on those bands. Yes, there are some FM repeaters, particularily on 1296, but other than that, it's a vast wasteland of very limited activity. Hard to lobby the point that amateurs need access at all.

That's why I think efforts to build the VUCC "brand" are going to be important to the ARRL. We just need to provide them with a clear road map of what we think is needed. No one suggestion or solution will work for everyone. 5 Band VUCC will be old news for many operators, but an exciting new challenge for others. Rover VUCC would be a challenge for the majority of operators.

If the league instituted a "VUCC Challenge" plaque where they celebrated the new awards by rewarding stations that worked the required grids and bands within a single calendar year, you've have a recipe for one of the most active seasons in decades.



--
--
73,

Les Rayburn, N1LF
121 Mayfair Park
Maylene, AL 35114
EM63nf

6M VUCC #1712
AMSAT #38965
Grid Bandits #222
Southeastern VHF Society
Central States VHF Society Life Member
Six Club #2484

Active on 6 Meters thru 1296, 10GHz & Light

_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>