Yes, you and I see things the same way probably 95% of the time, but
this time we are polar opposites. I find it highly unsettling that such
a high profile member of the contest community as yourself would
publicly advocate an escalation of the confrontation between contesters
and non-contesters in what is essentially the same fraternity of
hobbyists. I hear very little public grousing against the space
contesters use on major weekends anymore, mostly because there is so
little non-contest activity on the bands anymore, and what little I do
hear doesn't come from anyone high enough in profile worry about.
Nobody of any note is trying to steal our space.
In any case, nothing is really preventing us from using whatever
spectrum space we need for contesting any time we need it other than the
long-standing prohibition against contests on the WARC bands. We aren't
being excluded from those 80% of weekends and 100% of weekdays ... we
simply haven't bothered to encroach upon them.
I see no jeopardy here for us at all, and certainly none worth picking a
fight over. I would bet that well over 80% of the energy density
expended by hams in general over the course of a year is now derived
from some sort of contest activity (something an analysis of the RBN
database might possibly verify). We've been at the peak of the sunspot
cycle and still the bands are virtually dead outside of a contest. We
(contesters) are the 800 pound gorilla, and 800 pound gorillas don't
need to pick a fight to eat where they want to.
If you want to capture a higher percentage of that energy density, just
create a few more interesting large scale contests on other weekends
and things will take care of themselves. But guess what? If you do
that, do you know who is going to gripe the loudest? Not the DXers and
not the ragchewers. It will be the smaller contest and QSO party
sponsors who complain that they are being squeezed out.
Besides, as a hobby we need more accommodation, not less. We hams
aren't relevant in the least to anyone except ourselves anymore, and
magnifying internal squabbles hardly serves our best interests when it
comes to trying to justify our existence. Count me out.
On 8/8/2013 5:17 AM, Bob Naumann wrote:
Embarrassed? Over what?
Dave, normally you and I see things in pretty much the same way, so there
must be some confusion here over what the issue is.
First, I have no desire to put contests on the WARC bands - this is just not
necessary and proves nothing. Yes - not a good idea.
I'm also not advocating going against any agreements that have been in
place. I am, however, totally against limiting contests to "segments" of
the bands and other stupid restrictions that we hear proposed from time to
My point is entirely that the vocal minority anti-contest element needs to
be told to stop the juvenile complaining and to be happy with what they
have. The problem is that their goal is to eliminate contesting.
Yes, that's right - they want to eliminate contesting. It has nothing to do
with being fair at all.
If you look at the reality objectively (as I detailed in my previous post)
they have exclusive allocations (the WARC bands) and they get virtually
contest-free use of the bands for over 80% of the weekends per year, not to
mention 100% of all weekdays.
So, the reality is that they're complaining and seeking to limit contesting
to even less bandwidth than what we already consume. It's totally
ridiculous and by any measure unfair.
We need to fight back against this totally stupid, anti-contesting element.
They should be told that they should be happy with what they have and to
stop the baseless complaining and criticizing of contesters!
By any measure, contesters use the bands for a much smaller portion of the
time than is available to them and they should face that fact.
Who says non-contesters are in a position where their wants are placed above
contesters? Based on what?
It's absolutely ridiculous for contesters to be ashamed or embarrassed to
tell the truth and yes, to fight back.
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WARC Bands and Contesting: Aargh! FAQ Update
Say what? Fight back?? The last thing contesters need is to get pig
headed and pick a fight with other hams over agreements that have been
in place for decades. We don't occupy less than 20% of weekend activity
because anybody else is preventing us from using more of it, and to
claim that we need to "fight back" to use more of it is profoundly absurd.
You just made me embarrassed to be a contester.
On 08/07/13, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Since the WARC bands are contest-free bands, where's the balance?
Where are the contesting-only bands?
Of course, there are none. And, it would be absurd to presume that there
However, non-contesters are allowed to hold a similar absurd opinion and
are in fact, encouraged by some to seek to have contest band segments
established and the like in order to limit contest use of the bands.
When will there be fairness? When will non-contesters realize that they
have exclusive non-contest allocations and that they should stop
Seriously, while there are contests pretty much every weekend, less than
10 weekends a year (less than 20% of the weekends) have major contests on
them that dominate the bands and most of those are one mode at a time.
Is less than 20% of the weekends really too much to ask for contesters ?
So, non-contesters get greater than 80% of the year without a major
contest going on and they also get 3 (albeit small) bands where contest
activity is precluded.
Exactly how much would be enough for non-contesters? Hmmm?
We need to fight back.
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list