[CQ-Contest] 160m DX window dead?

[Richard L. King]

At 12:52 8/17/01 -0400, you wrote:

>What am I missing here?  If it is a DX contest, the DX window is fair game
>isn't it?
>
>W3PP

I am sure everyone has their own interpretation of the "DX Window".

I would never call CQ there because I would have W/VE answers to my CQs as 
well as DX. So the best answer is to call CQ on a frequency outside of the 
DX Window so you can respond to any and all callers.

If you are on the East Coast and loud, you don't have to be in the DX 
window to have lots of DX answer you. But you would certainly have less QRM 
if you could get away with using the DX Window. In the western states we 
can get a few DX answers to CQs during peak conditions, but hearing them 
with midwest QRM levels is really hard.

Also, the 160M contests are not really DX contests since you can work both 
domestic and DX stations. I would categorize the ARRL as a W/VE domestic 
contest with DX thrown in and the CQWW 160M contest as a world-wide contest 
using a domestic style.

It is too bad that we can't go back to the W1BB style of DX Windows. That 
is where the DX is in the window, W/VE stations are outside the window, and 
we are all working split. This solves the QRM problems between DX stations 
associated with working transceive inside the window. A lot more  usage of 
the window would then be possible.

But I don't kid myself that this would ever happen again.

73, Richard

k5na at texas.net


--
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 19:41:51 2001
From: Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:41:51 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] prejudicial language
Message-ID: <005201c1274c$492f02e0$ede3c23f at kr6x.org>


I'd like to discuss the anti-contest sentiment that was expressed by
the ARRL committee that recently formulated the 160 Meter band plan.
Many of you may have read the piece without recognition of the
prejudicial language contained in the text.

Operating competitions have advanced the communications art more than
any other activity present on the amateur radio bands.  During the
course of each popular contest, the utilization of the spectrum on
each band is maximized by the contest activity.  Each contest
represents a period of time during which the communications potential
of each band is optimally utilized.  Each two way contact completed is
highly important to the operator.  These periods should be considered
to represent the finest fulfillment of the public service goals
provided by the amateur radio service short of the saving of life and
property that occurs during emergencies.

Below I have highlighted several prejudicial and erroneous statements
regarding the effect on the amateur radio bands that the Committee
making the recommendation included within its comments to the band
plan:


"can disrupt a large portion of the band"

"help assure that a portion of the band will not be disrupted during
the contests"

"assure that certain frequency segments will be contest free"


> 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.

I am appalled with what I read in the committee comments.  Contesting,
contests, and contesters do not "disrupt" the bands, they utilize the
bands for the good of the public and amateur radio while meeting the
primary objectives of the amateur radio services to a degree with
which no other activity can compare.  The suggestions of the
committee, clearly expressing a preference against contest operation,
are nonetheless in the worst interests of the amateur radio service.




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