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

Thu Feb 6 18:10:36 EST 2020

Revoke their affiliation?!? Yikes!!!

I think we can work it out with them first. Explaining to them why it
is a bad idea.

Perhaps some of you can talk to Fred, K1VR who is the director of that
division and let him handle it. I will also send him a note.

73
RIa, N2RJ

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:06, Stanley Zawrotny <k4sbz.stan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We tell people who complain about contesting that they have the WARC bands specifically designated to be contest free. How will we be able to continue to say that if we let any little group declare that the gentleman’s agreement doesn’t apply to them?
>
> I think the ARRL, although they have no authority, should “speak to” the guys in VT about their short-sighted and ungentlemanly decision. They could at least revoke their ARRL affiliation.
>
> I played in all three SQPs last weekend, but will boycott any SQP that does not abide by agreed upon practices.
>
> Stan, K4SBZ
>
> "Real radio bounces off the sky."
>
> > On Feb 6, 2020, at 4:49 PM, Richard F DDonna NN3W <richnn3w at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > I don't think I could be any more categorically opposed to the notion of
> > contesting on the WARC bands.
> >
> > Contesters often get a black eye for using the bands - especially on
> > weekends.  The WARC bands are absolute refuges for
> > those who do not want to contest or like contesting.
> >
> > The addition of up to three bands of hardware is a massive disincentive
> > to casual contesters.  Casual ops are challenged enough to be capable on
> > 6 bands; now they want three additional bands?
> >
> > The WARC bands are (at most) 100 KHz wide with no clear segmentation
> > between CW and SSB.  On top of that, 30 meters is 50 KHz wide and is not
> > a universal allocation.  So, we're now going to occupy the WARC bands
> > wire to wire with contest operations - especially when -many- hams
> > understood them to be guaranteed refuges from contest operating.
> >
> > Aboslutely nothing good wille come from expansion of a contest onto 30 meters.
> >
> > 73 Rich NN3W
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 1:41 PM rjairam at gmail.com <rjairam at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Personally i think it send the wrong message.
> >>
> >> These bands are supposed to be contest free. Even if it affects almost no
> >> one it will bring negativity toward the Radiosport community.
> >>
> >> 73
> >> Ria, N2RJ
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:27 PM Mike Smith VE9AA <ve9aa at nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>> <
> >> 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
> >>> <
> >> 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
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest