SSB ops clear down to 7000 kHz on 40m, Grrrr

[Chuck O'Neal]

OK....then we should do the same thing when the CW operators venture into the phone bands during CW contests also?  Hey....fair is fair...right?

I find this a very poor idea and only demonstrates why we in the US should evolve into the same non mode based band allocations as the rest of the world.  Support RM-11305

Chuck...K1KW


-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Brian Carling <bcarling at CFL.RR.COM> 

> Mark & fellow CW ops... 
> 
> I did not do anything about it in the case of this CQWW contest. 
> I am not against contesters at all, but THIS went too far. 
> 
> I think we need a co-ordinated effort among CW ops the next 
> time this happens. 
> 
> Here is the idea. MOst of these gung ho contesters have e-mail. 
> 
> What about if we LOG all of their activity that is BELOW the IARU 
> edge (i.e. 7050 kHz) 
> or is oit 7030 kHz? 
> Anyway, we LOG it nad send a copy of the WHOLE LOG to CQ 
> Magazine with a letter of complaint. 
> 
> ALSO, and most importantly, we send an e-mail or a 
> "QSL CARD" or letter to each of these stations (mostly outside 
> USA so 
> an e-mail will be cheaper) and let them know that we are not too 
> happy about the situation and that we have lodged a complaint with 
> CQ Magazine. 
> 
> If a guy gets 40 or 50 such QSL cards, letters and e-mails from his 
> peers 
> he might think again before causing such careless and wanton 
> QRM to the CQ sub-band. 
> 
> What think you all? 
> 
> Maybe we need an informal "Uh Oh!" organization. 
> O-O = Official Observers 
> Uh-Oh = Unofficiual Observers 
> 
> Or we can sit on our butts and do nothing and the blighters will 
> take more and more of the CW segments away! 
> 
> Brian, AF4K 
> 
> P.S. PLEASE forward to OTHER CW-related lists! 
> 
> On 18 Jan 2006 at 23:09, W1EOF wrote: 
> 
> > During the last CQ WW SSB contest participants were operating all the way 
> > down to 7.002 on 40M. I wrote to several people at CQ Magazine asking why 
> > they did not voluntarily restrict the frequencies available for the contest. 
> > This to me was the mot obvious way to solve the problem. 
> > 
> > Only got one response, from some guy who was not at CQ Magazine. He said it 
> > was not their business to police it, and those amateurs who operated down 
> > there were legally operating under the rules of their country. I got no 
> > official answer from CQ. Neither did anyone else I know who wrote to them. 
> > Personally I think the most shameful of all are the American hams that get a 
> > license from the country they are visiting so they can operate without 
> > hinderance from those nasty sub-bands. 
> > 
> > Maybe I should subscribe so I can pull my subscription in protest? 
> > 
> > 73, 
> > 
> > Mark W1EOF 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------- 
> This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona 
> ----------------------------------------------------------- 
> 
> Subscription control - http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.asp?list=BOATANCHORS 
> To post - BOATANCHORS at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV 
> Archives - http://listserv.tempe.gov/archives/BOATANCHORS.html 

-----------------------------------------------------------
This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------

Subscription control - http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.asp?list=BOATANCHORS
To post - BOATANCHORS at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV
Archives - http://listserv.tempe.gov/archives/BOATANCHORS.html