[CQ-Contest] Hollingsworth and Voluntary Bandplans

[Tom Rauch]

It is a mistake to think Hollingsworth or the FCC in general can't 
enforce a bandplan.

That is exactly why the Texas group on 160 moved, and why some 
repeater operators have been in hot water. Put a repeater on that 
lacks coordination, cause a problem with someone operating inside 
normal ethics, and you can be busted. Yet it is NOT an FCC rule 
or coordination process. 

Not only is there a regulation about good operating practices, it is a 
royal pain in the rear to have someone listening to you waiting for 
you to make a mistake like failing to ID.




 
73, Tom W8JI
W8JI at contesting.com 


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


>From Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com  Fri Aug 17 02:21:09 2001
From: Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:21:09 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] 160m DX window dead?
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010816191425.01ee1ad0 at mail.pcnet.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c126ba$e644ddd0$ede3c23f at kr6x.org>


I am appauled with what I read in the committee comments.  Contesting,
contests, and contesters are successful at attaining the very positive
goal of optimally utilizing band segments.  They do not "disrupt",
they utilize the bands legitimately in very large numbers.  Their
concentration of activities into limited time segments have the effect
of providing that their use of the bands is minimally disruptive, even
while the effect is also to contrast the difference between time
periods that contesting occurs in vs. the time periods in which it
does not.

The key phrase "disrupt a large portion of the band" is entirely
inappropriate.  It places an extremely negative value judgement on the
utilization of the bands that occurs during contests.  Recognition
that contests and contesters have legitimate privileges to utilization
of frequencies on the ham bands is in order.  Instead of focusing on
the notion that any of the activities listed in the bandplan could
potentially be disrupted by the presence of contesters, the positive
role of contesting within amateur radio deserves attention.

I personally object to the following shortsightedness within the
bandplan:

1) The frequency range 1800-1810 for digital modes is inappropriate.
This activity would be better accommodated in the frequency range
1975-1995.  Recognition that packet, AMTOR, and RTTY, even 170 Hz
shift RTTY, are inheirently broadband communications modes by
comparison to CW is in order.  Moreover, packet operation is
potentially the most problematic regarding on-channel and adjacent
channel interference because it is channelized by nature, and this
channelization is automated.  Each packet mode transmission assumes,
by the nature of the protocol, that only packet transmissions are
possible on the channel.  Choice of timing for transmissions is
automated and randomized, and the existence of other modes of
transmission on channel is ignored by the equipment.

2) The selection of 1910 for SSB QRP operation, while it reflects
actual band occupancy, is a very poor decision as well.  This issue
will become increasingly contentious due to the makeup of the
committee that made these recommendations and the general bias of the
ARRL toward attention to issues that affect the Northeastern USA at
the expense of the remainder of the country.  In this case, the

3) In making these recommendations, the committee has offensively
placed value judgements on the occupancy of the band without regard to
a sensible evaluation of the value judgements.

I don't disagree that the 160 meter band deserves a defacto separation
of weak-signal activities from strong-signal activities, nor that each
mode deserves some expectation that a segment of the band will be
appropriate to their uses.



> Contests
>
> The Committee recognizes that activity during contests has increased
in recent years and can disrupt a large portion of the band. The
Committee further recognizes that, as a practical matter, during the
duration of some contests, it will not be feasible for the band plan
to be observed. Contest activity can generate more activity than the
band plan can accommodate.
>
> The Committee recommends that contest sponsors suggest in their
rules that the band plan be observed where possible and that operating
limits for contesting be implemented.
>
> The Committee recommends that for major ARRL contests, frequency
limits be established for both CW and SSB on 160 meters to help assure
that a portion of the band will not be disrupted during the contests.
Further, the Committee recommends that the ARRL contest branch manager
write CQ Magazine and suggest the same concept be adopted for major CQ
sponsored contests to help assure that certain frequency segments will
be contest free.
>
> The Committee recognizes that such recommendations will be difficult
to enforce, and may not be followed by many. The Committee is
attempting, however, through these recommendations, to address a
concern which was raised by numerous individuals providing input, and
asking that a segment of the band be available for the CW operators
where SSB operators cannot go during a contest, and vice versa.


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