[CQ-Contest] Re: CQ Contest Digest V3 #192

doug smith w9wi at bellsouth.net
Sun Jul 23 00:17:22 EDT 2000

> From: Fred Laun K3ZO <aalaun at ibm.net>
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] "QRL"
> W9WI said:  "Now if someone asks whether the frequency is QRL and you fail
> to answer,  the frequency is his..."
> Aha!  That's why I never liked to use "QRL?".  What if the user is copying
> an exchange from a weak station ON frequency and doesn't want to interrupt
> his copying to say "R" or "YES" because then he will have to ask for a fill
> from the other station?  The recent arrival to the frequency doesn't care
> when it becomes obvious that the frequency really was in use?  He says
> "Well, I asked..." and feels that since he got no answer he has a legal
> right to continue.  What about the station who was already there?  If I'm
> him, I'm going to fight to keep "my" frequency.

I guess I'd suggest you're going to have to accept the fill as part of
the cost of keeping a run frequency.  That said, if you make it apparent
reasonably quickly that you were there, I'm going to leave you the
frequency.  It's if I ask "QRL?", hear nothing, call CQ, make 2-3 QSOs,
and *then* you show up & claim it's your frequency that you're going to
have a problem.  

Fred may be somewhat correct to consider that many frequency fights are
an issue of necessary bandwidth.  Depending on the contest, some
operators may need more bandwidth though.  (example: if I'm working CQWW
from W0, I need more bandwidth than if I'm operating the same contest
from W3.  Because most of the callers (from EU) are weaker.)  
> As to legalities, consider this case:  A station asks "QRL?" or "?" and
> receives "Yes" for a reply so he moves on without so much as sending
> another dit.  Now read the requirements in FCC Part 97 for station ID.  Do
> you think Riley would agree that the station who sent "QRL?" in this case
> had followed the FCC rules?  That's why, as W7TI accurately pointed out, I
> prefer a short CQ instead.

I suppose it's technically illegal but I really doubt Riley would object
to the situation.
> From: k8cc <k8cc at mediaone.net>
> I am starting to get offended by the characterization by some on this
> reflector that SO2R operation is unsportsman like.  This has culminated
> with K3ZO's recent statement "And no, I never have been, and never will be,
> SO2R."  You can almost detect (if that's possible via e-mail) the sneer.  I
> don't mean to pick on Fred, but such characterizations are unfair.

Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say SO2R is unsportsmanlike, but
I do definitely believe it has hurt contesting.  

Firstly, because of the operators who *aren't* skilled but try it
anyway.  (I'm afraid I'm going to become one of those operators this
fall! - the hardware modifications are in progress as I type..)  

Secondly, because it reduces or eliminates the need to occasionally stop
CQing and hunt mults.  This, in turn, reduces the turnover in run
frequencies on the high bands, and makes it more difficult for stations
in less-favored locations to find an open spot.  This is probably most
obviously demonstrated on 10 meters CW in recent DX contests and the
ARRL 10-Meter Test, where there's plenty of spectrum and people have
been running as high as 28.260.  I don't want to know what things are
going to sound like in a few years when 10 meters is no longer usable.  

I would not be unhappy if major contest rules were modified to prohibit
SO2R operation.  
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
Sites which fail to act against spammers will be killfiled.

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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list