[CQ-Contest] SSB in CW band

[4X4KF]

Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:

>Hmmm.  One last comment:  I'm not saying "go away."  (Although, isn't that
>what some of the others in this discussion HAVE said to people who object to
>contesters dominating a given band to the exclusion of anything else?  Can't
>have it both way gang!)
>
>I'm saying "find another way."  Yes, 40 is overcrowded on a contest weekend.
>The band changes coming in the next few years will alleviate that, but it
>will still be overcrowed.  That gives us the rights to do... what?  Be
>creative?  Find a whole?  Work on our stations and antennas to give us an
>edge, to find a way to work around the broadcasters?  Certainly.
>  
>
I say, stick to the rules.
4X4KF

>But does that give us the right to trample on other users?
>
>One can argue (and some have) that the non-contesters should just shut up
>and go elsewhere.  Do we really have a moral, ethical, and/or legal right to
>do that?  Because if we think we do, then the non-contesters will counter
>that they have just as much of a right to try and push us aside.  Is that
>really what we want?
>
>One can argue (and some have) that certain types of QSO's don't belong on a
>particular band anyway.  Well, on any given day & time, maybe 80 or 30 or 20
>is a better day to communicate between Point A and Point B... but on another
>given day, that band will be 40.  And who are we to tell someone they can't
>use the band?  Let me be very clear... I'm not saying that it's "OK" for a
>long-standing sked or net to suddenly show up without warning, plop down on
>"their" frequency, and claim it as theirs.  They will have to jostle for a
>clear frequency just like we do.  That's the nature of "first come first
>served."  But it's equally just as wrong for someone working split to
>designate an existing QSO or net frequency as their "listening" frequency,
>and just as wrong for people calling that station to transmit with listening
>first... and I feel that way be it a contest operation or a DXpedition to
>The Most Rare One In History.
>
>We keep dancing around the real issue.  Why do suggested band plans exist?
>Because of normally expected daily amateur operating practices, as has been
>suggested?  OK, fine.  But does that mean we throw out a band plan when it's
>inconvenient to us?  When it gets in our way?  And our justification for
>dumping a band plan is what, because the band was crowded, and we think our
>contest operating is more important than someone else's QSO?  Isn't that the
>very definition of arrogant presumption?
>
>I'm not saying "go away."  I'm saying that pushing aside any other users
>because WE don't feel that THEY have the rights to operate as they choose,
>in a part of the band where generally accepted operating practices is in
>contrast with the operating of that particular contest, is bad amateur
>practices.  It's unethical.  It's poor sportsmanship.  It's the arrogance of
>the schoolyard bully who wants to make the rules up for his or her
>convenience at the time and to hell with everyone else.
>
>THAT is what I think is wrong.
>
>But since I have the impression that I'm well in the minority here, this is
>my last word on the subject.  I can't stop some of you.  I can't even
>persuade some of you to think about this without being told off or finding
>myself pigeonholed into extreme positions I don't maintain.
>
>Just remember Pogo's immortal words when the hammer finally does come down
>and the restrictions are imposed on all of us because a few of us feel they
>have no limits.
>
>73
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kelly Taylor [mailto:ve4xt at mts.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:43 AM
>To: Ron Notarius W3WN; 'CQ Contest Reflector'
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SSB in CW band
>
>
>To me, the truth lies somewhere between Joe's and Ron's viewpoints.
>
>Joe isn't advocating trampling on anybody, merely saying that an open
>frequency is by definition, open. If nobody's using it, why can't he? If
>someone else wants to stake their claim first, by starting a ragchew or
>whatever, then Joe will have to find somewhere else. Isn't that your point,
>Joe?
>
>Where Joe's position gets a little dicey is when his pileup gets too wide
>and starts elbowing other users out of the way. He can't be held responsible
>for his callers' inabilities to set their VFO properly, but it does speak to
>why a run station can generate ill will at times toward contesters,
>particularly amongst non-contesters who think they're adhering to the
>bandplan.
>
>However, the net result of Ron's viewpoint is this: if you can't find a
>space according to the bandplan, go away.
>
>That's a little too extreme, in my view. I don't think we want to get into
>the business of telling any amateur that he has to go fishing instead of
>using a frequency that's perfectly open, perfectly accessible under the
>rules of his licence.
>
>High levels of activity are a good thing. To think otherwise is to begin to
>write the epitaph for amateur radio.
>
>Also, to restrict access to 40 meters because the frequencies allotted under
>the band plan aren't available, while leaving swaths untouched, only
>provides argumentative fodder for those who would argue against expanding 40
>meters. Is that what we want?
>
>73, kelly
>ve4xt
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
>To: "'CQ Contest Reflector'" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 11:07 PM
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SSB in CW band
>
>
>  
>
>>Joe, your reply truly saddens me.  But I will give you this much credit;
>>unlike many of the others who seem to feel as you do, at least you will
>>stand up (metaphorically speaking) and say so publicly.
>>
>>It is obvious that I'm not going to convince you otherwise.  The day may
>>come that the contest rules do get changed, or worse more and more
>>administrations impose by law band plans because some of us couldn't abide
>>by voluntary band plans in any form.  I hope it doesn't, but I can see it
>>happening.
>>
>>What is really unfortunate is that the voluntary band plans were developed
>>by amateurs in other countries as guidelines so as to avoid unneeded
>>governmental regulation.  What you are saying is that since there's no
>>regulation, you can ignore the band plan.  Not only do you thus invite
>>    
>>
>chaos
>  
>
>>and further regulation or re-regulation, but (IMHO) you thus choose not to
>>use good amateur practices.
>>
>>Must ethics be legislated to be self-enforced?
>>
>>Now, I was ready to shoot back a lengthy rebuttal, but outside of these
>>    
>>
>few
>  
>
>>remarks, I'm not going to bore the others on the reflector.  I think my
>>views by now should be pretty clear.  So out of curiousity, let me ask you
>>something:
>>
>>Have you ever been trampled on by people participating in a contest that
>>you're not?
>>
>>I had it happen to me.  I'll spare you the details.  Suffice to say, it
>>    
>>
>gave
>  
>
>>me a slightly jaundiced view of the lengths that some will go to, to make
>>one more "new" one.
>>
>>And with that, I will let your words speak for themselves.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:w4tv at subich.com]
>>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 8:36 PM
>>To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN'; 'CQ Contest Reflector'
>>Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] SSB in CW band
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>2.  My analogy is flawed?  Hmmm.  40 is taken over by
>>>contesters, so if you don't want to contest, go to another band.
>>>That's not "another route through town," to play on the analogy,
>>>that's "another town."
>>>      
>>>
>>Yes, your analogy is flawed.  Another band is not "another town"
>>it's another road, perhaps a road less traveled, but another
>>road to making QSOs.  In the case of 40, if you're looking for
>>domestic QSOs, 80 is a good alternate, if a somewhat longer path
>>is your thing 30 meters is generally better than 40 any time.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Joe, I think it's very clear that you believe that if it's
>>>not prohibited by law, it's allowed, that might makes right,
>>>that anything goes if it's not illegal.
>>>      
>>>
>>Absolutely, if it is not prohibited by law it is permitted.  Laws
>>are made to provide objective rules that apply equally to everyone.
>>Your "bandplans" say if I want to contest and the rest of the band
>>is full up with broadcasters and 5,000 contesters, I can't do it on
>>7022 but if I want to rag chew with some 5 WPM Extra across town
>>using a KW I can?  That's absurd.
>>
>>If you want to prohibit a behavior for "the greater good" convince
>>your bleeding heart regulators to make the behavior illegal.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>And thus, you are one of the examples of what the non-contesters
>>>are complaining about.  I'm sorry to have to say that; frankly, I
>>>thought better of you.
>>>      
>>>
>>Non-contesters have no more right to preferential access to a
>>frequency than SSTV does to 14.230 or Jack Gerritsen had to the
>>VHF/UHF and pubic service spectrum on the West Coast.  Amateur
>>frequencies are not "assigned channels" like the commercial
>>service - they are there on a first come first served basis.  I'm
>>not advocating intentional interference and never will but if a
>>frequency I'm licensed to use is open and I'm looking for a "hole"
>>in the band, you'd better believe I'll use it and not leave it for
>>someone else who might be engaged in a different kind of amateur
>>activity.
>>
>>There is nothing wrong with that behavior and any non-contester who
>>can't understand the concept of first come first served has not
>>read the back of his/her license recently.
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CQ-Contest mailing list
>>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>__________ NOD32 1.1846 (20061031) Information __________
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>  
>

--