[CQ-Contest] CQ 160m SSB contest

[Albert Crespo]

-http://www.arrl.org/band-plan
The ARRL band plane indicates SSB OPERATION starting on 1843 MHz. This 
is not new.
There are two  major phone 160 contests a year, ARRL and CQ,  3.8 % of 
all weekends.
You are proposing all SSB operating between 1843-1850 MHz. Sure.




----- Original Message ------
From: "Roger Parsons" <ve3zi at yahoo.com>
To: "David Thompson" <thompson at mindspring.com>;"Contest" 
<CQ-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: 25/02/2013 12:09:43
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m SSB contest
>Sorry Dave, I don't believe that is the real problem at all.
>
>Of course the different allocations make things difficult. Of course it will be virtually impossible to secure the whole 200kHz worldwide. Of course the FCC will never limit US phone operation to above 1840. That doesn't mean that  the current situation is reasonable or that it cannot be improved.
>
>The 1800 to 1810 kHz portion is not available for any mode in much of the world, so intercontinental QSOs are not going to happen there in any 160m contest. There is no reason whatsoever that displaced the NA contacts could not take place above 1900kHz.
>
>Intercontinental SSB contacts are theoretically possible with quite a small number of countries in the 1810 to 1820 kHz segment. If that sector is made off limits in SSB contests it still leaves 75% of the 1810 to 1850 kHz area of 'prime real estate' and 100% of the truly common segment between 1830 and 1850 kHz for the contest.
>
>I don't think that is too much to ask at all.
>
>
>The solution does truly lie in the hands of the contest organisers.
>
>73 Roger
>VE3ZI
>
>
>________________________________
>From: David  Thompson <thompson at mindspring.com>
>To: Roger Parsons <ve3zi at yahoo.com>; Contest <CQ-contest at contesting.com>
>Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 5:21
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m SSB contest
>
>Roger,
>
>The real problem is that there is still no worldwide allocation on 160. Many in Europe only have 1810 to 1850 and some who do have more of the band can only run low power (10 watts) above say 1850.  The USA and Canada are lucky in that we hae the entire band.   I have asked IARU officials many times to get the IARU countries to make 1800 to 2000 be the band so the "unofficial" SSB portion can really start at 1843.  I was told it was not possible by the President of IARU and several IARU Rigional Officials.  Most of the world do not have a band above 1900 Khz.  I did get one official to say that he thought we might see 1800 to 1900 be a worldwide band but probably never up to 2000 khz.
>
>Until this problem is fixed having SSB all over the lower part of the band will happen 3 or 4 rimes per year.
>
>73 Dave K4JRB
>Retired CQ 160 Director
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Parsons" <ve3zi at yahoo.com>
>To: "Contest" <CQ-contest at contesting.com>
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 6:08 PM
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m SSB contest
>
>
>I am sure this sentiment will be unpopular on this reflector - sorry.
>
>As I'm sure everybody knows, this was the weekend of the CQ 160m SSB contest. This has meant that the band has been full of loud SSB station from 1800 up to rather over 1900 kHz. There was very little activity in the upper part of the band most of the time. The bottom part was however saturated.
>
>I know there is no formal band splitting requirement, but there is a band plan which says that the bottom 40kHz is for CW and narrowband data modes only. However, I know also that many of the countries that allow SSB only over part of the band usually include only 1830-1850 kHz.
>
>
>This weekend also marked the last two days of the 9U4U expedition. Burundi is a pretty rare country and a lot of people were still hoping to work them this weekend. It would have been utterly impossible for any CW operator (at least in NA) to hear the 9U under the SSB. Actually, it would have been pretty difficult to have any CW contact at all. This strikes me as being a little unfair and rather thoughtless.
>
>It would be nice if just some of the band could be free from SSB during contests. How about 1800 - 1820 kHz? The bottom 10kHz is not allocated to amateurs in much of the world, so my suggestion would allow 10kHz for 'local' NA CW contacts, and 10kHz for international contacts.
>
>Would this not be a reasonable accommodation? It does after all leave 90% of the band for SSB.
>
>
>Whilst there is no chance whatsoever of a regulated plan, it would be entirely possible for CQ and other contest organisers to write it into their rules. I believe that they should do just that.
>
>I am sure somebody will produce the (spurious) argument that they cannot make their antenna work except at the bottom of the band. 80m is wider in percentage terms than 160m and people seem to manage just fine there.
>
>73 Roger
>VE3ZI
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>