On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 23:58, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> I'm saying that a contest sponsor cannot enforce anything more
> restrictive than the regulations of the particular country in
> which the station is operating. To do so opens the very real
> possibility of keystone copy, kangaroo courts, and unequal
> enforcement. Who is to decide which "bandplans" may be violated
> and which may not? Is SSB on 7010 any worse than SSB on 1833?
> What level of proof should be required?
When it comes down to it the majority of contest rules cannot be
enforced. How does the committee know I was QRP? They'd have to send
an inspector into my shack with a wattmeter... yet while violations are
not unheardof, they're rare. IMHO if the CQ WW rules were to specify
"no SSB between 7000 and 7025" most of the SSB operation between 7000
and 7025 *would* go away.
But... isn't this the same "contest-free zone" concept we're decrying
within the other bands? We're proposing to tell the SSB operator who
intends to operate on 40 meters that he *can't* operate on 40, because a
CW operator *might* want to operate? How is this different from
marking, say, 14227-14233 as off-limits because someone *might* want to
transmit a SSTV picture? Or 7290-7300 because someone *might* want to
operate full-carrier AM?
I was pleasantly surprised to notice a growing level of DX activity in
7150-7200KHz. Anyone who wasn't listening for DX up there missed out on
a number of stations, including V51W who was doing a land-office
business on 7195 simplex. At least on this side, SW BC is much less of
a problem up there than it used to be. I have hope that in a few years,
this segment will relieve pressure on the lower parts of the band --
this problem could be self-rectifying in 2-3 years.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|