[CQ-Contest] W4ZV's Most Disruptive Contest

Tue Aug 21 13:09:15 EDT 2001

Isn't what's at the root of this problem the combination of
non-overlapping national allocations AND the lack of mandatory
mode restrictions for US stations? 

I'd suggest that if a common world-wide allocation actually existed 
and it was sufficiently wide to make a reasonable partitioning between 
narrow & wide band modes, this matter would have been settled long ago. Likewise, if there were mandated mode restrictions in the US then, as 
arbitrary and capricious as those regulations might be, that would be 
the end of the matter with no room left for discussion or debate.

I personally have no problem with the thesis that purely "domestic" 
(or continental) SSB contests (like state QSO parties or NAQP or SS 
or ...) and perhaps even general domestic SSB operations have little justification for occupying any spectrum below 1840 or 1850. 

As far as DX and DX contests are concerned, if reality reflected the implication that all amateurs shared a 160m band extending from 1800 
(or 1810) to 2000 as one might infer from the IARU regional band plans, 
there'd be little valid basis for not whole heartedly embracing such 
plans as well. 

However, While these plans are quite reasonable in general, I am 
somewhat troubled that one does still comes across national allocations
like 1815-1825 or 1810-1830 or 1800-1825. Such allocations may no longer 
be in the majority, but their continued existence legitimately calls into question the universal applicability of regional band plans to every 
possible situation that might arrise, even within a region. 

Granted that everyone might ultimately be much better off if SSB DX 
on 160m were only to be worked split. As a practical matter DX is 
where you find it. And the DX is the one who gets to call all the 
shots: you gotta work the DX where the DX is; and you gotta work 
'em by the rules that the DX sets. 

This leads into the scenario in which it is only possible for a US 
station to work a particular DX station by calling on a frequency that's 
inconsistent with the band plan but will not violate any actual 
regulation.

So, does a DXer make the call? Does a contester? 

The potential for FCC enforcement of a band plan only enters the picture
in the event of an interference complaint. In this example it is the DX station's run frequency, so let's just presume that a clear frequency exists and there is no one with whom to interfere. Besides, a CW station would have never, ever have selected its operating frequency where it would cause interference to a DX SSB signal because that decision would be a regulatory infraction. So again, there's no one to complain.

So who makes that call? 

73,
Mike K1MK

Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk at arrl.net
________________________________________________
PeoplePC:  It's for people. And it's just smart. 
http://www.peoplepc.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  Tue Aug 21 20:52:07 2001
From: Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones)
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:52:07 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] prejudicial language
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010821123830.01eccb00 at mail.pcnet.com>
Message-ID: <029901c12a7a$c300c9b0$ede3c23f at kr6x.org>

I'm quite disappointed with this response.  Tom, you've searched the
several different meanings of the word "disrupt" for the single least
negative connotation, and presented it in a weak and dubious
arguement of symantics.

A simple statement of "Disrupt may not have been an ideal choice of
words..." would have been more accurate.

I see no vendetta against contesters implied in the 160m Band Plan
report.  I see less than adequate thought went into the choice of
words, and I fear that the repercussions have barely begun.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Frenaye" <frenaye at pcnet.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] prejudicial language

At 08:40 AM 8/21/2001 -0700, Jeffrey Clarke/KU8E wrote:
>I tend to agree that 160 is not really the place for a SSB DX contest
>but I guess it serves a purpose for those guys that don't do CW and
>maybe want to try to get their WAS.
>
>Also, I am disappointed that the ARRL thinks that contesters
"disrupt"
>the bands. Seems to me a contest encourages people to get on a band
>which might be considered not open.

Disrupt may not have been an ideal choice of words but it isn't
inaccurate.
The word can mean several things but one of them is:

        "to interrupt the normal course or unity of"

(from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary at www.m-w.com)

You and KR6X seem to think there is some kind of vendetta against
contesters implied in the 160m Band Plan report.   I respectfully
think you and Leigh ought to spend more time on the air and less time
picking a fight that isn't there.

The basic problem with contesting on 160 is that during most of the
year, especially during high sunspot times, the band is not well-used,
even in mid-winter, and contesting changes it considerably.

On any evening (this is a W1 point of view) there are a dozen or so
SSB and AM ragchewers scattered from 1850 to 2000, there are a handful
of CW QSOs or CQs, mostly below 1840.   There sometimes are also a few
weak DX stations to be heard - usually only worked by those with a KW
and decent sized 160m antenna.   Count up the signals, in the course
of an hour you might hear 50 different callsigns, many of them on the
same frequencies in ragchews or calling a DX station one after the
other.

So what happens on a contest weekend?   Let's pick the three with the
most activity (again from a W1 perspective) - the ARRL 160 (CW) and
the CQ 160 CW and SSB.    Note that they only happen on 3 of 52
weekends in a year.     In the CW weekends you'll find activity from
1800-1870 (I base this on actual data from several hundred stations in
the 2000 ARRL 160m contest), and on the SSB weekend, activity goes
from below 1820 to above 1900.   I haven't ever done the 160 SSB
contest seriously, maybe someone else has some real data about the
actual frequency usage.   Even more, the number of stations on the
band on either mode jumps into the thousands.   It overwhelms any
other activity that traditionally uses those frequencies.   Disrupt is
another way to describe it.

The issue facing the 160m Band Plan Committee was how to reconcile
several different things (not all listed here).   One was the
irritating conflict between SSB ragchewers and DXers in some parts of
the country (usually not W1) below 1840.   I say "irritating" because
it tended to be mostly localized and never so terribly bad that people
got really POed about it.  Another was the inadvertent conflict that
came up when MFSK software came on the scene and used a European
(Region I) recommendation to use 1838 KHz for digital.   A lot of 160
"newbies" were dropping in on a frequency used for a long time for
DXing in the USA.    Add to that the general feeling by a significant
number of people that formal band segmentation by the FCC to keep the
wideband modes out of a portion of the band (like all of the other HF
bands) was desirable.

The Committee wrestled really hard with each of the issues and finally
settled on the band plan that was printed in September QST (without a
lot of the associated details from the report), with a strong push to
keep the wideband modes above 1840 KHz (LSB no lower than 1843).

The problem with that solution is that it doesn't work well for CW
contesting in the two big 160m CW contests.   The amount of CW
activity just doesn't fit in the 1800-1840 area, especially if there
is a DX Window (which I think there should continue to be) specified
by the contest sponsors.   SSB activity in the USA (and for that
matter, all of North and South America) can all fit above 1843.    CW
activity in the ARRL and CQ 160m contests will disrupt (see definition
above) the usual SSB and AM activity - as will SSB contesting disrupt
the usual SSB and AM and CW on the CQ 160 SSB weekend.    Not unlike
any other contest does on any other band - except few others take
place in the both the traditional CW and SSB areas at the same time.
Disrupt does not mean that it's "bad" in the situation we're talking
about, it means it's different.    It's also been going on for a lot
of years, so it isn't going to go away because someone interprets
"disrupt" as being something bad.

I'd be really happy if the CQ 160 SSB rules included a recommendation
that in the USA and Canada stations should stay above 1843, and work
stations below 1843 using split VFOs.   I'd be even happier if that's
how it worked outside of contests as well.  About 15-20% of the CQ
160m SSB competitors are probably on this reflector and can have a
large impact on whether the rules say that, and whether the actual
operating follows that as well.

As for a hard-and-fast FCC demarcation at 1840 with wideband modes
above, it isn't impossible, but I think it's a long shot.   The 160M
Band Plan Committee did suggest to the ARRL Board that be the course
of action:

>> It is the Committee's understanding that the FCC does not desire to
consider any piecemeal approach to regulation, such as 160 meters
subband rule making, changes to operating privileges, etc. It is also
the Committee's understanding that other efforts are underway, such as
the Novice Reforming Committee, whereby at some point in the future
such studies will be integrated together as a package and presented to
the FCC for possible rule making. <<

>> It is strongly urged by this Committee, that the 160 meters band
plan herein recommended be incorporated into that strategy and
eventually proposed to the FCC for rule making. <<

The ARRL Board adopted the actual band plan (suggested frequencies)
and took the rest of the report under consideration, as requested.
As to how it goes from here, it depends on how important it is
relative to a lot of other things, and to how individual ARRL Board
members feel about the issue.   If it's important enough to you, then
you should not just be venting on cq-contest, you should be talking to
your ARRL Director.  And, as several have indicated, the FCC is not
inclined to segment bands any more than they are today - I've heard
directly that from at least two different FCC officials.

Hope I didn't get too scattered in my comments.  I just think we
should all do a little less "tilting at windmills" and do a lot more
to help teach people how to become better contesters, or to join in
and contest with us in the first place.   We all seem to "know" why it
is so much fun and so valuable a training tool, but not all that many
of us seem to want to talk to those outside "our circle" and invite
them in.

                        Back to net...
                                                -- Tom

=====
e-mail: k1ki at arrl.org   ARRL New England Division Director
http://www.arrl.org/
Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone:
860-668-5444

--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST 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  Tue Aug 21 21:41:43 2001
From: Leigh S. Jones" <kr6x at kr6x.com (Leigh S. Jones)
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:41:43 -0700
Subject: [CQ-Contest] disruptive of silence
Message-ID: <02bf01c12a81$b182ed60$ede3c23f at kr6x.org>

> ... Contest on 160 are probably disruptive of silence.
>
>
> 73,
> Mauri I4JMY

I'd have made this argument myself -- a very true statement -- if I
thought that the "disruptive" talk going around about since the
ARRL committee report contests were harmless.

Thanks, Mauri, for the good laugh.

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