[CQ-Contest] WARC Bands and Contesting: Aargh! FAQ Update

David Gilbert xdavid at cis-broadband.com
Thu Aug 8 12:20:53 EDT 2013

Yes, you and I see things the same way probably 95% of the time, but 
this time we are polar opposites.  I find it highly unsettling that such 
a high profile member of the contest community as yourself would 
publicly advocate an escalation of the confrontation between contesters 
and non-contesters in what is essentially the same fraternity of 
hobbyists.  I hear very little public grousing against the space 
contesters use on major weekends anymore, mostly because there is so 
little non-contest activity on the bands anymore, and what little I do 
hear doesn't come from anyone high enough in profile worry about.  
Nobody of any note is trying to steal our space.

In any case, nothing is really preventing us from using whatever 
spectrum space we need for contesting any time we need it other than the 
long-standing prohibition against contests on the WARC bands. We aren't 
being excluded from those 80% of weekends and 100% of weekdays ... we 
simply haven't bothered to encroach upon them.

I see no jeopardy here for us at all, and certainly none worth picking a 
fight over.  I would bet that well over 80% of the energy density 
expended by hams in general over the course of a year is now derived 
from some sort of contest activity (something an analysis of the RBN 
database might possibly verify).  We've been at the peak of the sunspot 
cycle and still the bands are virtually dead outside of a contest.  We 
(contesters) are the 800 pound gorilla, and 800 pound gorillas don't 
need to pick a fight to eat where they want to.

If you want to capture a higher percentage of that energy density, just 
create a few more interesting large scale  contests on other weekends 
and things will take care of themselves.  But guess what? If you do 
that, do you know who is going to gripe the loudest?  Not the DXers and 
not the ragchewers.  It will be the smaller contest and QSO party 
sponsors who complain that they are being squeezed out.

Besides, as a hobby we need more accommodation, not less.  We hams 
aren't relevant in the least to anyone except ourselves anymore, and 
magnifying internal squabbles hardly serves our best interests when it 
comes to trying to justify our existence.  Count me out.

Dave   AB7E

On 8/8/2013 5:17 AM, Bob Naumann wrote:
> Embarrassed?  Over what?
> Dave, normally you and I see things in pretty much the same way, so there
> must be some confusion here over what the issue is.
> First, I have no desire to put contests on the WARC bands - this is just not
> necessary and proves nothing. Yes - not a good idea.
> I'm also not advocating going against any agreements that have been in
> place.  I am, however, totally against limiting contests to "segments" of
> the bands and other stupid restrictions that we hear proposed from time to
> time.
> My point is entirely that the vocal minority anti-contest element needs to
> be told to stop the juvenile complaining and to be happy with what they
> have.  The problem is that their goal is to eliminate contesting.
> Yes, that's right - they want to eliminate contesting.  It has nothing to do
> with being fair at all.
> If you look at the reality objectively (as I detailed in my previous post)
> they have exclusive allocations (the WARC bands) and they get virtually
> contest-free use of the bands for over 80% of the weekends per year, not to
> mention 100% of all weekdays.
> So, the reality is that they're complaining and seeking to limit contesting
> to even less bandwidth than what we already consume.  It's totally
> ridiculous and by any measure unfair.
> We need to fight back against this totally stupid, anti-contesting element.
> They should be told that they should be happy with what they have and to
> stop the baseless complaining and criticizing of contesters!
> By any measure, contesters use the bands for a much smaller portion of the
> time than is available to them and they should face that fact.
> Who says non-contesters are in a position where their wants are placed above
> contesters?  Based on what?
> It's absolutely ridiculous for contesters to be ashamed or embarrassed to
> tell the truth and yes, to fight back.
> 73,
> Bob W5OV
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> David Gilbert
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:36 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WARC Bands and Contesting: Aargh! FAQ Update
> Say what?  Fight back??  The last thing contesters need is to get pig
> headed and pick a fight with other hams over agreements that have been
> in place for decades.  We don't occupy less than 20% of weekend activity
> because anybody else is preventing us from using more of it, and to
> claim that we need to "fight back" to use more of it is profoundly absurd.
> You just made me embarrassed to be a contester.
> Dave   AB7E
>> On 08/07/13, w5ov at w5ov.com wrote:
>> Since the WARC bands are contest-free bands, where's the balance?
>> Where are the contesting-only bands?
>> Of course, there are none. And, it would be absurd to presume that there
>> should be.
>> However, non-contesters are allowed to hold a similar absurd opinion and
>> are in fact, encouraged by some to seek to have contest band segments
>> established and the like in order to limit contest use of the bands.
>> When will there be fairness? When will non-contesters realize that they
>> have exclusive non-contest allocations and that they should stop
>> complaining?
>> Seriously, while there are contests pretty much every weekend, less than
>> 10 weekends a year (less than 20% of the weekends) have major contests on
>> them that dominate the bands and most of those are one mode at a time.
>> Is less than 20% of the weekends really too much to ask for contesters ?
>> Really?
>> So, non-contesters get greater than 80% of the year without a major
>> contest going on and they also get 3 (albeit small) bands where contest
>> activity is precluded.
>> Exactly how much would be enough for non-contesters? Hmmm?
>> We need to fight back.
>> 73,
>> Bob W5OV
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list