[CQ-Contest] IARU band plans - just what are they?

[Richard F DiDonna NN3W]

I'd say you have 6 contests where conflict is likely...

ARRL DX
WPX
RDXC
WAE
CQWW
Sweeps

73 Rich NN3W
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Haavisto" <kamham69 at gmail.com>
To: "Don Field" <don.field at gmail.com>
Cc: "CQ-Contest MailList" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] IARU band plans - just what are they?


>I think the problem boils down to this: Bandplans assume "normal" loading,
> and try to concentrate certain types of activity together.  Most of the
> time, this is fine.  However, this idea falls apart when two things 
> happen:
>
> One: *everyone* wants to get on the band at the same time (ie - a very
> popular contest such as the CQWW is taking place) - there simply is not
> enough room to accommodate everyone at the same time, and
>
> Two: a lack of sunspots.  For the past few years, this has meant a huge
> concentration of activity on 20 meters as the whole world tries to get on
> the band at the same time.  Now that cycle 24 has started to show signs of
> life, the congestion we have seen is starting to ease as folks are able to
> migrate to 15 and 10 meters during contests.
>
> That said, filling the entire band is somewhat of a rare occurrence - 
> three
> weekends a year - namely the CQWW, CQ WPX and the ARRL DX.  Trying to jam
> the same number of folks into less spectrum (ie - setting aside a big 
> chunk
> for 20 meters for nets/ragchewers and forcing contesters to deal with even
> worse congestion does not make any sense.  Why should they enjoy QRM free
> operation while the rest of the world (who are actually using their 
> radios)
> have to deal with even more QRM?  If folks are adverse to contest 
> activity,
> using the WARC bands seem like a perfectly reasonable alternative, but for
> some reason is rejected outright as a bad suggestion.
>
> I have brought this up with a few locals - an often cited reason is that
> they don't want to spend money on a WARC band antenna.  They bought a 
> small
> tribander many years ago, and that should be good enough.  Most of the 
> time,
> it is.  Some coax and a piece of wire is all it would take for them to 
> build
> a dipole for 17 meters, but is seems easier to complain (endlessly) rather
> than expanding their horizons and try something new.  I am not sure what
> they would do in a real emergency if their tribander fell down and they 
> had
> to build an antenna from scratch, or actually spend some money to improve
> their stations....  Needless to say, their radios are of a similar 
> vintage,
> and lack many of the filtering capabilities offered by modern 
> transceivers.
>
>
> I am sure this will seem odd to most of us who have put lots of
> time/money/ongoing effort into their stations, but there it is.  Its 
> easier
> to complain that to spend a few bucks on a new antenna.....
>
> Tom - VE3CX
>
>
>
>
> The RSGB does, from time to time, receive complaints from members who find
>> thei enjoyment of the bands constrained at weekends due to contest
>> activity.
>> It is all very well to say "use the WARC bands" but for phone-only
>> operators, that leaves you with 18MHz upwards - not too helpful for local
>> nets, etc. So I do believe contesters need to show some moderation and we
>> (the RSGB Contest Committee) are trying to lead by example in this 
>> respect.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest