[NLRS] -- LONG -- Re: ARRL VHF contest power limits

[aflowers at frontiernet.net]

I'm against most forms of social engineering, but one thing I know about serious contesters is that they will try to get any advantage over the competition that they can to stick it to them in the next contest.  (Side note: contesters in the plains are far to nice to each other, unless there is some under the table wagering that I don't see on email lists).  I understand that the 8 point Q's on the high microwaves were meant to be an incentive to get people to use those bands.  It makes sense that the power catagorization should attempt to do the same by either creating an incentive for people to operate those bands, or at the very least, not creating an impediment.  Would increasing the 10W limit increase activity in the long term on all or any of those bands?  If I have four bands low power, and I'm considering adding 903, is the 10W limit a disincentive? What if we eliminated the power restriction above 432?  My first reaction is that I think it would be just fine if contesters tried to take advantage of this by running a few hundred watts on 902 to rack up more 3-pointers in an attempt to win the "low power" battle.  Sounds like a great way to build activity on the high bands.

Maybe a good way to approach this question is by asking what's in the best interest of VHF+ long term in your area?

Andy K0SM/2 (outside the juridiction, but trying to keep in touch)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Richardson" <w9fz at w9fz.com>
To: nlrs at mailman.qth.net
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:44:03 PM
Subject: Re: [NLRS] -- LONG --   Re: ARRL VHF contest power limits

<snipped>
I lean towards upping the 902 and up limits.  The differentiation
between classes may not happen on those bands. The differentiation
may end up being made on what the op chooses to run on the bottom
4.  And that's all ok with me.

73
Bruce W9FZ