[CQ-Contest] WARC bands & Contesting

ALAN KAUL alan.kaul at worldnet.att.net
Tue Jan 13 20:18:51 EST 1998

 Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WARC bands & Contesting

 No need for flames on this---tis just a discussion between people who have
 opinions.  The following is mine....
 I believe there's a big difference between a band specific contest (even
 it is WARC band) and the CQWW or ARRL DX Test.  Most of the comments I've
 read for the last several years (talk about a hornet's nest--I once
 proposed a WARC Contest for 30M on a Compuserve Forum!!) seem to integrate
 ANY TALK OF CONTESTS ON WARC with simultaneous contesting on all bands
 160-thru-10 WARC included.  I think contesting on all bands
 160-80-40-30-20-17-15-12-10 in a single time frame would be a disaster. 
 When I write about contesting on a WARC band that isn't what I have in
 Before anyone gets too hot under the typing fingers, I must say YES, I've
 heard all the arguments about no contesting on WARC because ''there has to
 be someplace someone can go to avoid contesting''---my response is that
 people who write those messages aren't listening.  We're not talking about
 contests on all the bands including WARC, we're talking about a contest
 a few hours on a single WARC band (with no contests anywhere else, there
 should be plenty of frequecies where people can go to avoid contests).
 Everytime this argument arises, several people -- including ARRL Directors
 -- erroneously cite ''treaty requirement'' (I think K0HB and W2CE pretty
 well knocked that one down even though they don't favor contesting on
 WARC).  Then quite a few others cite ''gentlemen's agreement'' which means
 to me that those who agreed are bound by it, but if you aren't party to
 agreement (and I wasn't) then don't tell me it's binding on everyone
 (example in real life: several countries didn't sign the nuclear test ban
 treaty and some of the big guys who did are trying to force submission
 those who didn't sign--the treaty might be a lofty goal, but imposing it
 a unilateral step NOT A CONSENSUS DECISION).  By definition an 
agreement is something between the parties involved, and neither the ARRL, 
nor the IARU represents me on this.  I understand THEIR position -- but it
 POSITION, NOT MINE.  The other thing mentioned is ''bands are
 shared---Amateur radio is not exclusive to the WARC frequencies.''  I
 remember reading in the FCC rules and regs that a ''shared band'' cannot
 used for contesting.  Certain priorities do exist -- and we as amateurs
 operating on the WARC bands must abide by them  WHETHER A CONTEST IS
 I believe the BEST CONTEST BAND for the low power operator is 30M because
 power is limited to 200W.  It's ideal for QRP -- operators can compete
 favorably with 100W transceiver users.  There are few people with high
 Yagi's, and propagation leaves the band open to somewhere almost all the

 The playing field is almost level -- moreso than on most other
 But I doubt I'll ever see it in my lifetime.  
 Flames not required -- this is just a friendly discussion between people
 with differing opinions, right?
 Alan Kaul, W6RCL
 Amateur Radio website: http://home.att.net/~alan.kaul/w6rcl.html
 w6rcl at amsat.org

CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list