[CQ-Contest] SSB in CW band

Mon Oct 30 11:31:38 EST 2006

I'm not trying to level any playing field because I don't play. For several 
reasons I haven't operated in phone contests for years. I still operate in 
many CW contests. My point in starting the discussion was contesters have 
bullied their way into taking over the 'entire' 40 meter band from top to 
bottom. They have in the rudest possible way pushed everyone else off the 
band.  Someone else commented it's just a few bad apples. It's way more than 
a few bad apples it's more like a bushel basket full. There were at least 5 
American Xpeditions operating below 7025, there were at least 4 U.S. 
stations listening below 7025. There were about 15 non-US stations operating 
SSB in the data portion. Then there were the 100's of stations who blindly 
went wherever they were told to transmit, above 7250, regardless whether 
there was a QSO or net already on the frequency. American regulations 
require a ham to listen on a freq before transmitting, a rule which was 
completely disregarded on a minute by minute basis.
By wording the rules to say something like this: 'contesting permitted only 
between 7030-7090 and 7100-7250' would be easily enforceable and would not 
trample on anyone's rights or privileges.
Contesters should be leading the way in operating skills and technology 
instead we are the bully on the block swinging the baseball bat at anyone 
who gets in our way.
73

MAL
N7MAL
BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Subich, W4TV
  To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN' ; 'CQ Contest Reflector'
  Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 5:58
  Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SSB in CW band

  I'm saying that a contest sponsor cannot enforce anything more
  restrictive than the regulations of the particular country in
  which the station is operating.  To do so opens the very real
  possibility of keystone copy, kangaroo courts, and unequal
  enforcement.  Who is to decide which "bandplans" may be violated
  and which may not?  Is SSB on 7010 any worse than SSB on 1833?
  What level of proof should be required?

  All these garbage complaints about legal operation is just more
  of the same "level the playing field" nonsense.

  73,

     ... Joe, W4TV

  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Ron Notarius W3WN [mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net]
  > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 9:26 PM
  > To: Joe Subich, W4TV
  > Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] SSB in CW band
  >
  >
  > Oh.  So what you're saying is, since it's not prohibited by
  > law, anything
  > goes.
  >
  > And if a contest sponsor wants to "enforce" ethical behavior,
  > it exposes
  > them to ethical questions.
  >
  > Do I understand you correctly?
  >
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:w4tv at subich.com]
  > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:34 PM
  > To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN'; 'CQ Contest Reflector'
  > Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] SSB in CW band
  >
  >
  >
  > Sorry, as long as the situation exists as it does ... no legal
  > impediment to the rest of the world operating below 7040 on
  > phone and a situation where the majority of the world does
  > not operate transceive, I would do EXACTLY what the major
  > big gun stations do, listen as low as I need in order to find
  > a clear spot.  There is nothing to prevent it in any national
  > regulations and there is no way contest sponsors can enforce
  > any rule concerning a bandplan - just look at 160 meters and
  > all the SSB stuff below 1843 - and any attempt to enforce a
  > bandplan that does not have the force of regulation exposes
  > the contest sponsor to serious ethical and legal questions.
  >
  > 73,
  >
  >    ... Joe, W4TV
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > > -----Original Message-----
  > > From: Ron Notarius W3WN [mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net]
  > > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 5:50 PM
  > > To: Joe Subich, W4TV
  > > Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] SSB in CW band
  > >
  > >
  > > So we should just keep quiet and look the other way?
  > >
  > > Sorry, but if we don't do anything, it will only get worse.
  > > Considering
  > > that several of the top offenders (K3LR, KC1XX to name two)
  > > are present or
  > > represented on the reflector, if we ignore it, they will
  > > continue.  At least
  > > now they know that we're on to them.
  > >
  > > -----Original Message-----
  > > From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:w4tv at subich.com]
  > > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:35 PM
  > > To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN'; 'CQ Contest Reflector'
  > > Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] SSB in CW band
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > W3WN writes:
  > >
  > > > Yes, the issue of SSB encroaching on the 40 meter CW band has
  > > > been discussed before, some might even say ad infinitum
  > ad nauseum.
  > > > However, in the past, the discussion has centered around SSB below
  > > > 7030 kHz or 7025 kHz.  I don't recall (although I could be wrong)
  > > > a past discussion about SSB all the way down to 7007, 7005, even
  > > > 7001 kHz -- effectively obliterating the CW part of
  > > > the band.  Sorry gentlefolk, that's bad amateur practice.
  > > >
  > > > Yes, it's allowed in many administrations around the world.
  > > > That doesn't make it right.  Just because you can do it doesn't
  > > > mean that you should.
  > >
  > > Self-enforcement will never fly.  As long as one competitor has the
  > > ability to push the envelope the others will do so in order to stay
  > > competitive.  The only thing that will fix the "problem" is uniform
  > > allocations globally.  Allowing most of the world to operate any
  > > mode, anywhere, any time will never work - bandplans or contest
  > > sponsors will not make any difference.
  > >
  > > 73,
  > >
  > >    ... Joe, W4TV
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  >
  >
  >

  _______________________________________________
  CQ-Contest mailing list
  CQ-Contest at contesting.com
  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

  -- 
  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.17/505 - Release Date: 
10/27/2006