I think it's a non-issue.
Not much harm in FT-* on the WARC bands, based on its single (or two) frequency
usage. WARC band contesting with CW/SSB/RTTY would be a problem.
FT-* on the non-WARC bands is a bigger threat to contesting as we know it.
73 - Jim K8MR
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Smith VE9AA <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>
To: jimk8mr <jimk8mr@aol.com>; cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 5, 2020 7:16 pm
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] WARC band contesting is a thing now !
#yiv6811574319 #yiv6811574319 -- _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}
#yiv6811574319 #yiv6811574319 p.yiv6811574319MsoNormal, #yiv6811574319
li.yiv6811574319MsoNormal, #yiv6811574319 div.yiv6811574319MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}
#yiv6811574319 a:link, #yiv6811574319 span.yiv6811574319MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv6811574319 a:visited,
#yiv6811574319 span.yiv6811574319MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv6811574319
span.yiv6811574319EmailStyle17 {font-family:New;color:black;} #yiv6811574319
.yiv6811574319MsoChpDefault {} _filtered {} #yiv6811574319
div.yiv6811574319WordSection1 {} #yiv6811574319 Jim, So that I do not
misinterpret you….you are then in support of WARC band contesting? Today VT,
tomorrow Maine, next week the New England QSO Party, then the Florida QSO
party, then CQWPX (Ok, I know CQ doesn’t do WARC band contesting.) Let’s add
RTTY…..OK, now CW….sure, SSB now… Where does it end? It’s just NOT A GOOD
IDEA. Mike VE9AAMike, Coreen & CoreyKeswick Ridge, NB From: jimk8mr@aol.com
[mailto:jimk8mr@aol.com]
Sent: February 5, 2020 7:54 PM
To: ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WARC band contesting is a thing now ! I don't do
FT-*, at least not yet, so I may not be the most qualified person to comment.
But my observation is that FT-* sits on a specific frequency, so that adding
contest activity to that frequency is not likely to add to congestion for other
users of the WARC bands. My greater concern would be that as is happening the
the VHF contests, FT-* activity detracts from the CW/SSB activity. In the case
of Vermont, there is so little activity there anyway, that I can't imagine it
making any noticeable difference. And for the few who are serious, adding
another mode to work those few Vermont people could be a feature, not a bug.
73 - Jim K8MR -----Original Message-----
From: Mike Smith VE9AA <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>
To: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 5, 2020 6:27 pm
Subject: [CQ-Contest] WARC band contesting is a thing now !I guess in the VT
QSO party it's a thing. I sent an email to Mitch, W1SJ tovoice my
displeasure/concern. From
http://www.arrl.org/contest-update-issues?issue=2020-02-05 and
http://www.ranv.org/vtqso.html ".CONVERSATION WARC Contesting? Perhaps
you missed it. I certainly did. In the rules of the 2020 Vermont QSOParty
<http://www.ranv.org/vtqso.html> , is the complete section on how FT4and FT8
contacts can be made for the VT QSO Party. There are a bunch ofrules related to
FTx mode contacts for the VT QSO party listed, includinghow the standard
exchange of grid square is to be used, and this, rule 6: "6. FT8/FT4 contacts
can be made on the recognized FT8 frequencies of10.136/10.140, 18.110/18.104
and 24.920/24.919 MHz upper side band. No othermodes are allowed on 30, 17 and
12 meters." The potential problem is that the frequencies cited in rule 6 are
WARC bands<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WARC_bands> . There's been a
gentleman'sagreement among... I guess, "gentlemen," that the WARC bands won't
be usedfor contesting. Certainly you won't find any ARRL
Contests<http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/HFContestingGuidlines_201411.pdf>
using the WARC bands. CQ Magazine and WWROF sponsored contestsalso disallow
usage of WARC bands for their events. The verbiage in the ARRLContesting
Guidelines<http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/HFContestingGuidlines_201411.pdf>
is the most explicit, stating the rules as well as therationale: "WARC bands
are not used for contests, therefore moving to thesebands during contest
weekends is an option for casual operators and ragchewers." Hams are a
self-regulating sort, by and large. It would be pretty obvious inother modes if
someone were contesting on the WARC bands, since they mighthave the tells of
sending "CQ TEST." Or if someone was soliciting a contestQSO without being
obvious about it, they'd be taking their chances ingetting someone that wanted
to have a genuine conversation beyond "59" andtheir state. That kind of stuff
really ruins the rate. But with the FT modes, the "regular" non-contest
exchange is basically thesame as the contest exchange. You really can't tell
whether someone callingCQ from a particular grid is trying to use the band for
a contest contact,or just wants a regular FTx contact. I've made some FT4 and
FT8 contacts both outside of contests and as part ofthe WW Digi DX and ARRL
RTTY Roundup. Outside of a contest period, I'vedecoded people doing directional
CQs, probably to work on their WASawards...or maybe they just like one of that
state's sports teams. But inthe future, I might wonder if another QSO Party
changed their rules to allowcontacts on the WARC bands as well. In my opinion,
allowing FTx contacts to count for the VT QSO Party may nothave been thought
all the way through. Intended to spur greaterparticipation, it's not breaking
any regulations but runs counter toworldwide consensus that the WARC bands of
30, 17, and 12 meters should becontest-free to give non-contesters some
breathing room on busy weekends.This has worked very, very well for more than
30 years. While one of thesmaller state QSO parties will not be too disruptive,
there's no reason toopen the door to bigger events that certainly will cause
problems. <snip> N9ADG." Wow- I don't have words. -Mike
VE9AA Mike, Coreen & Corey Keswick Ridge, NB
_______________________________________________CQ-Contest mailing
listCQ-Contest@contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|