[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] TQP vs CQ RTTY

To: "'Ron Notarius W3WN'" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>,<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TQP vs CQ RTTY
From: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:54:57 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
So, we just tell everybody who can't find a spot to turn off the radio and
come back later???

There is no easy answer, particularly when all countries of the world don't
get the same allocations.

We as contesters often tell the non-contesters to recognize that activity is
good, that the contest is only so long, etc. etc. etc. If we can't take that
advice ourselves, are we not being the ultimate hypocrites?

Activity is good. Activity shows we actually do want our frequencies, as
opposed to non-contest times when it can be a stretch to find anybody on the

Chill, people. Celebrate that our bands are being used to their full extent.
Be understanding of people in areas that don't have the same allocations we
do. Understand that with a lot of activity comes the perfect opportunity to
exercise your ability to operate in heavy QRM.

And remember: even those organizations that developed band plans explicitly
point out that they are only meant to apply to normal situations and not to
heavy periods of activity.

73, Kelly

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Notarius W3WN
Sent: October-01-07 7:50 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TQP vs CQ RTTY

You can't win.

Gentlemen's agreements don't work.  We'll see that in action during the CQ
WW, ARRL DX, and CQ WPX contests in the next few months, when stations
obeying the letter of the (local) law will transmit SSB on 40 meters all the
way down to 7.001 kHz (yes, even tho the LSB falls outside of the band).
Mention anything about it -- as anyone on this reflector can attest to --
and you will have station operators crow that it's not illegal, the
gentlemen's agreements are supposed to be flexible, if you don't like it
operate on the WARC bands you Luddite, etc etc etc.  In short, might makes
right, and if it gives you an edge in the contest, fairness and gentlemen's
agreements go out the window.

And as far as the "chicken and the egg" of which contest was there first...
it doesn't matter either.   Veterans of the Pa QSO Party will remember that
until roughly 25 years ago, this was a September contest.  It got pushed
into October when the ARRL decided to re-align the dates of the three
"major" VHF Contests to "match up" as the same weekend of the appropriate
month.  That PaQP had been on that weekend for untold years was irrelevant,
as it was deemed to be in the Best Interests of All & The Greater Good to
move the VHF contests.  (As it turned out, that worked out very well for Pa
QSO).  And after the move, the old ARRL Open CD Party got moved to the same
weekend (which turned out to be a good thing as it made it real easy to get
the West multipliers on 40 on Saturday night!)  Again, who's there first can
become irrelevant.

And speaking of Pa QSO... last year's event, for the first time ever,
included RTTY and PSK-31 digital modes in addition to CW & SSB.  Not only
did the contest organizers get grief ad infinitum for adding the modes from
traditionalists, but I'm told they also got grief from the organizers of a
EU-based RTTY contest for daring to schedule another RTTY event on "their"
weekend.  Makes me miss the days when Pa QSO and another state QSO party (I
think it was IL, but may have been IND) shared a Sunday for many years, and
instead of griping about it, everyone had a lot of fun working each other!

Sometimes I think some contest organizers and operators forget that in
addition to the competition, these events are also supposed to be fun.  Too
many "do it my way" and "if it's not against the rules  I can do it" and
similar-thinking egos can spoil it for all of us.

...and I still don't know where I'm operating from, but I will be on in some
capacity in the Pa QSO Party in 2 weekends!  50th anniversary contest --
can't miss a milestone like that!

73, ron w3wn

-----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:36:51 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TQP vs CQ RTTY
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>

Rick writes:

> Joe, W4TV, responded:
> It's high time that sponsors of primarily North American
> activities get it through their parochial heads and under-
> stand that they can not schedule CW events during RTTY
> contests.
> So, what came first...the chicken or the egg?  Isn't it First
> Come (Originally Scheduled), First Served (reasonable bandwidth
> priority to co-exist together)?

I think (but have no way to confirm) that CQWW RTTY is as old
or older than TQP.  Of course, RTTY is the fastest growing
contest mode so it is inevitable than bandwidth needs will
grow even if there was no overlap originally.

FQP has the same issue with SPDX RTTY on the last weekend of
April.  As I said within the FCG, "domestic" contest activity
should be moved down or to 7000-7015 where there is no
international RTTY.

> Rescheduling events would be the simplest solution, but which
> entity would want to move their date(s)?

I doubt that CQ will ever consider moving any of the WW tests
from their "last weekend of the month" dates.

> I think there was also some kind of FISTS deal going on
> circa 055/060.

FISTS or one of the many QRP groups ALWAYS seem to have something
going on around 055/060.  That area has always been a problem
with both RTTY and EU phone and is never going to be resolved.


   ... Joe, W4TV

CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list

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