[CQ-Contest] WARC band contesting is a thing now !

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

You may be right Jim.  

But the greater issue is, IMHO, is the implicit breach of trust between contesters and the rest of the Amateur community, regarding contest activity... ANY contest activity... on any of the WARC bands.

The vocal anti-contesters... and they are out there, just check out the forums on eHam and QRZ.com... will jump on this and use it as excuse to smear ALL contesters as liars and generally selfish, dishonest Amateurs.  Do we really want that?

This rules change should not have happened.  That it was slipped in so quietly can make one wonder about motives.  I HOPE this was simply a well meant but honest error.

73, ron W3WN

> On Feb 5, 2020, at 6:54 PM, K8MR via CQ-Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't do FT-*, at least not yet, so I may not be the most qualified person to comment. But my observation is that FT-* sits on a specific frequency, so that adding contest activity to that frequency is not likely to add to congestion for other users of the WARC bands.
> My greater concern would be that as is happening the the VHF contests, FT-* activity detracts from the CW/SSB activity. In the case of Vermont, there is so little activity there anyway, that I can't imagine it making any noticeable difference. And for the few who are serious, adding another mode to work those few Vermont people could be a feature, not a bug.
> 
> 
> 73  -  Jim  K8MR
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Smith VE9AA <ve9aa at nbnet.nb.ca>
> To: cq-contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Wed, Feb 5, 2020 6:27 pm
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] WARC band contesting is a thing now !
> 
> I guess in the VT QSO party it's a thing.  I sent an email to Mitch, W1SJ to
> voice my displeasure/concern.
> 
> 
> 
> From http://www.arrl.org/contest-update-issues?issue=2020-02-05
> 
> and http://www.ranv.org/vtqso.html
> 
> 
> 
> ".CONVERSATION
> 
> WARC Contesting?
> 
> Perhaps you missed it. I certainly did. In the rules of the 2020 Vermont QSO
> Party <http://www.ranv.org/vtqso.html> , is the complete section on how FT4
> and FT8 contacts can be made for the VT QSO Party. There are a bunch of
> rules related to FTx mode contacts for the VT QSO party listed, including
> how the standard exchange of grid square is to be used, and this, rule 6:
> 
> "6. FT8/FT4 contacts can be made on the recognized FT8 frequencies of
> 10.136/10.140, 18.110/18.104 and 24.920/24.919 MHz upper side band. No other
> modes are allowed on 30, 17 and 12 meters." 
> 
> The potential problem is that the frequencies cited in rule 6 are WARC bands
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WARC_bands> . There's been a gentleman's
> agreement among... I guess, "gentlemen," that the WARC bands won't be used
> for contesting. Certainly you won't find any ARRL Contests
> <http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/HFContestingGuidlines_
> 201411.pdf>  using the WARC bands. CQ Magazine and WWROF sponsored contests
> also disallow usage of WARC bands for their events. The verbiage in the ARRL
> Contesting Guidelines
> <http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/HFContestingGuidlines_
> 201411.pdf>  is the most explicit, stating the rules as well as the
> rationale: "WARC bands are not used for contests, therefore moving to these
> bands during contest weekends is an option for casual operators and rag
> chewers."
> 
> Hams are a self-regulating sort, by and large. It would be pretty obvious in
> other modes if someone were contesting on the WARC bands, since they might
> have the tells of sending "CQ TEST." Or if someone was soliciting a contest
> QSO without being obvious about it, they'd be taking their chances in
> getting someone that wanted to have a genuine conversation beyond "59" and
> their state. That kind of stuff really ruins the rate.
> 
> But with the FT modes, the "regular" non-contest exchange is basically the
> same as the contest exchange. You really can't tell whether someone calling
> CQ from a particular grid is trying to use the band for a contest contact,
> or just wants a regular FTx contact.
> 
> I've made some FT4 and FT8 contacts both outside of contests and as part of
> the WW Digi DX and ARRL RTTY Roundup. Outside of a contest period, I've
> decoded people doing directional CQs, probably to work on their WAS
> awards...or maybe they just like one of that state's sports teams. But in
> the future, I might wonder if another QSO Party changed their rules to allow
> contacts on the WARC bands as well.
> 
> In my opinion, allowing FTx contacts to count for the VT QSO Party may not
> have been thought all the way through. Intended to spur greater
> participation, it's not breaking any regulations but runs counter to
> worldwide consensus that the WARC bands of 30, 17, and 12 meters should be
> contest-free to give non-contesters some breathing room on busy weekends.
> This has worked very, very well for more than 30 years. While one of the
> smaller state QSO parties will not be too disruptive, there's no reason to
> open the door to bigger events that certainly will cause problems.
> 
> <snip> N9ADG."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow- I don't have words.
> 
> 
> 
> -Mike VE9AA
> 
> 
> 
> Mike, Coreen & Corey
> 
> Keswick Ridge, NB
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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