[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] TQP vs CQ RTTY

To: <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TQP vs CQ RTTY
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:32:07 -0400
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Hmmm.  Interesting.  Reduce congestion on the bands on contest weekends by
reducing existing contests and, by extension, possibly restricting new ones.

Well, it would help alleviate some of the problems.  But... there's a catch?

Who decides?  Who determines which contests survive, which disappear or
merge, which new ones are allowed to exist.  IE:  Who plays God?

The ARRL in the US and the IARU internationally would seem to be a good
candidate.  But, if I were an official of either or both, I wouldn't come
near this right now with a three meter pole.  No matter who is appointed to
the inevitable committee, no matter what criteria are used -- heavy
criticism is inevitable; someone will prove to be unhappy in one measure or
another.  And you can just imagine the Field Day that the anti-ARRL forces
would have with that.

A self-appointed group?  Maybe.  But again, once the decisions are made, how
do you enforce them?

And who would have the nerve to tell someone wanting to start up a new or
revive an old contest that they can't have a slot?  Or to order a contest to
change to a different weekend for any one of a dozen good reasons.  And even
if someone says that... again, how do you enforce it?

Contests die off or morph into other things all the time.  It wasn't THAT
long ago that the ARRL DX contest was two weekends on each mode, after all!
The 73 Magazine single band SSB championships were fun for a year or three,
and then they faded away too.  Many state QSO parties fade out, revive, and
fade away again.

So no.  On paper, Jim's idea may be worth looking at, but I just don't see
how in can be implemented.

And to put the burden of band congestion on local and regional contests is
beside the point.  Because regardless of how you would (if you could)
restructure contesting, the bottom line is that a given band on a given day
will have congestion from contesters and regular users.  Nor does it solve
the problem of the ego that has to win at any or all costs... within the
strict interpretation of the rules, of course... and a little rule bending
here and there...

Either everyone works together -- the so-called Gentlemen's Agreements -- to
co-exist, or we continue to feud with each other.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Reisert AD1C [mailto:jjreisert@alum.mit.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:50 PM
To: Ron Notarius W3WN; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TQP vs CQ RTTY

We need more regional events and fewer state QSO parties.

Sure, those in FL, CA, PA flourish, as do some of the others like MI, OH, TN
(sorry, I'm not going to remember them all), but many don't.  The New
and 7-land guys have the right idea.  Maybe some of the other call areas
do the same.

Free some slots so other contests can be moved around.  For example, I think
there's a NAQP or Sprint that lands on 40 meters the same time as the CQ WPX
RTTY contest (I'm probably getting this wrong, but there IS such a conflict

There are just too many contests.  Huge ones, big ones and puny ones.  They
can't all co-exist on the same frequencies.  If you move the contests
you can minimize the frequency collisions.  But if everyone refuses to give
THEIR weekend, it's never going to happen.

73 - Jim AD1C

Jim Reisert AD1C/0, <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>, http://www.ad1c.us

CQ-Contest mailing list

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