What does make sense to me is to have "ALL" contests be restricted to less
24 hours or less. Why take a whole weekend? The work angle don't work for
me because of all the time zones involved that govern work schedules. Just
keep all contests to 24 hours or less and most of the problem will go away.
Terry, KQ5U
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Sandy'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'David Thompson'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Elecraft List'"
<[email protected]>; "'Glowbugs reflector'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 8:32 PM
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Re: CX Report
Does this proposal make any sense to your folks out there?
No, it does not make sense. Why restrict one type of activity -
one that generates the most activity and participation - to
artificially narrow portions of the spectrum when other activity
has no such restriction.
Digital mode contesting is the fastest growing HF activity and
it is squeezed, particularly on 40 meters, due to the excessively
narrow available spectrum in regions 1 and 3. 40 KHz (7020 -
7060) is far from excessive particularly compared to the 70 or
80 KHz occupied by CW contesters in a CQWW CW, ARRLDX CW, SS CW,
CQWPX CW or the 200+ KHz occupied by phone operators in CQWW SSB,
ARRLDX SSB, SS SSB, CQWPX SSB, etc.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sandy
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 8:46 PM
To: David Thompson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Elecraft List; Glowbugs reflector
Subject: [Elecraft] Re: CX Report
There has been an IARU bandplan that just came out. NOW is
the time to
support it and restrict contests to the sectors that are
befitting the mode.
The RTTY guys run rampant all over the band and are making HF
comms "hell"
for others who would like a piece of the pie too. This will
get worse as
modes like CW and AM become "obsolete" in their eyes.
There IS a simple solution: retrict the contests to a small
slice of the
band. Assign monitoring stations to list those that stray
out of these
"assigned segments". The "penalty" would be disqualification
of log for
those who do so. This would require that ARRL, IARU, RSGB
and others stand
by these standards so that the contesters would not
monopolize the WHOLE
band with their "fun"!
There is no reason why the contests shouild take up the whole
CW or whole
SSB segments or RTTY should run rampant over the entire band
during the
contests.
I am mainly a QRP contester, but the QRP folks have taken
steps to usually
restrict their contests to narrow segments of the CW bands to
avoid stepping
on the toes of those who wish not to participate.
Does this proposal make any sense to your folks out there?
73,
Sandy W5TVW
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: CX Report
> Sandy,
>
> I was working the YL/OM phone a few years ago and calling
CQ YL and at 0Z
> the North American Sprint came on. These guys tried to
steam roll me.
> K0GAS (a YL) worked me so I would give her a sprint QSO.
Moved to 40 to
> get
> away from them.
>
> This year I was working the QCWA party and had to move to
SSB from CW as
> some RTTY contest came on and wiped out the CW bands.
>
> A few years ago the State QSO parties almost died
> as W5NQR/NQQ ran the LA one and I and K4BAI the GA one and
almost no one
> came. Now they and those sprints are all over plus there
is a RTTY one
> every weekend now (I am on the writelog reflector so I see
posts about
> them). Some hams do 2 contests a weekend EVERY weekend and
now those
> sprints are weeknights.
>
> I first entered the ARRL SS in 1958 so I have been around
for years and
> quiet QSO parties such as CX and QCWA are being pushed off
the map. Too
> bad.
>
> What to do? I have complained to the three or four people
who CONTROL
> contests and they laugh me off. CQ and ARRL just look the other way.
> And as you probably remember I run the CQ 160 Contests.
>
> 73 Dave K4JRB
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.4/1057 - Release
Date: 10/8/2007
> 9:04 AM
>
>
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [email protected]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [email protected]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [email protected]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
