[CQ-Contest] A DX Contest on the WARC bands -- A terrible idea

Tue Aug 31 23:04:55 EDT 2021

This might be the worst idea I've heard on cq-contest in quite a while.  We
are a "hated" group by a lot of people: non-contesters, net users, SSTV
operators, SOTA activaters, etc.  As others have mentioned, part of our
reputed claim regarding our legitimacy is the ability for non-contest users
to be able to use WARC bands 24/7 - totally free of contest operations.
Violating that notion can only result in bad things.

Let's also remember that the WARC bands are at most 100 KHz in width, with
30 meters being 50 KHz in width (and we're not primary in some countries).
Things are miserable enough on 40 meter SSB which is effectively 75 KHz in
width (7125 to 7200).  Do we really want to pi$$ off every WARC band user
by taking over the entire spread of 17 and 12 meters.

-Nothing- good will come from this suggestion.

73 Rich NN3W

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:55 PM Edward Sawyer <
EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com> wrote:

> Agreed.  So let the spectrum be used for all.  Far better than the dead
> silence we hear often on these bands.
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> From: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 9:56 PM
> To: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com>;
> cq-contest at contesting.com; kzerohb at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A DX Contest on the WARC bands -- A terrible idea
>
> It was not.
>
> It was not the equivalent of a "deal" made in a "cigar smoke filled
> room"... not even the smoke from a few blown electrolytics.  And not by an
> "elitist" group.
>
> There are many aspects of contesting that can get that accusation, with
> some level of accuracy.  This is not one of them.  It was discussed for
> quite some time.
>
> And the core reasoning remains... as narrow as the three WARC bands are,
> and as limited as they remain (in whole or in part) in many administrations
> around the world, I can see NO good reason to operate organized contests
> using the spectrum.
>
> Change for the sake of change is not, in and of itself, always a good
> thing.
>
> I respect that you disagree.  But I see no point in further discussion of
> this point.
>
> 73
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com<mailto:
> EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com>>
> To: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net<mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net>>;
> cq-contest at contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com> <
> cq-contest at contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>>;
> kzerohb at gmail.com<mailto:kzerohb at gmail.com> <kzerohb at gmail.com<mailto:
> kzerohb at gmail.com>>
> Sent: Tue, Aug 31, 2021 9:50 pm
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] A DX Contest on the WARC bands -- A terrible idea
>
> Honestly Ron.  It sounds like a deal made by good ol boys in a cigar smoke
> filled room in the 70s that is not only no longer relevant today but was
> never agreed to but from an elitist group that doesn’t speak for the
> contest majority.  Time for things to change in my opinion.
>
>
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
>
>
> From: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net<mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net>>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 9:05 PM
> To: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com<mailto:
> EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com>>; cq-contest at contesting.com<mailto:
> cq-contest at contesting.com>; kzerohb at gmail.com<mailto:kzerohb at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A DX Contest on the WARC bands -- A terrible idea
>
>
>
> If memory serves, and if I'm wrong I'm sure Hans will correct me...
>
>
>
> When we first got access to the WARC bands, there was a lot of controversy
> amongst contesters, especially from those who didn't want to invest in
> equipment for three more band positions -- rigs, antennas, etc.  Especially
> for three very narrow bands that would fill up with signals quickly, if
> contesting were permitted on those bands.  Especially considering that we
> didn't get all three bands at once, and that they were phased in at
> different times and with different limits from different countries and
> administrations.
>
>
>
> So the general consensus from the bulk of the contesting clubs and groups
> were to simply exclude the bands, at the time, from contesting.
>
>
>
> The "pact" of leaving the bands available for non-contester use wasn't so
> much as a "pact" as something that evolved over time.  And it became, over
> time, very effective... especially during major contests, as a reasonable
> alternative for non-crowded bands was now available.  (Of course, some
> would, and continue to, argue that their rights to operate on the
> "traditional" bands where & when they want still trumps all contest
> activity, so why should THEY move off their claimed territory?  But I
> digress)
>
>
>
> So, IMHO, it became, and remains, Good Amateur Practice to prohibit, as a
> "gentlemen's agreement" (and yes, I know we're not all gentlemen, and not
> all men, but we've murdered enough grammar etc. here as it is) organized
> contesting from the WARC bands.
>
>
>
> And that's where you agreed to it.  As did we all.  As Good Amateur
> Practice.  One of many.
>
>
>
> Simple enough.
>
>
>
> 73
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com<mailto:
> EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com>>
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com> <
> cq-contest at contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>>; Hans Brakob
> <kzerohb at gmail.com<mailto:kzerohb at gmail.com>>
> Sent: Tue, Aug 31, 2021 8:35 pm
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A DX Contest on the WARC bands -- A terrible idea
>
> I was not asked nor ever agreed to said pact
>
> When exactly did each of us do that actually?
>
> If I am being held to my word l would like to know when I at least gave it
>
> Ed. N1UR
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Hans Brakob <kzerohb at gmail.com<mailto:kzerohb at gmail.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 6:41:16 PM
> To: Edward Sawyer <EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com<mailto:
> EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com>>; cq-contest at contesting.com<mailto:
> cq-contest at contesting.com> <cq-contest at contesting.com<mailto:
> cq-contest at contesting.com>>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A DX Contest on the WARC bands -- A terrible idea
>
> We made a pact with our non-contesting brothers that we’d stay off WARC.
> We ought not break our word.
>
>
> 73, de Hans, KØHB
> “Just a Boy and his Radio”™
> ________________________________
> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+kzerohb=gmail.com at contesting.com
> <mailto:gmail.com at contesting.com>> on behalf of Edward Sawyer <
> EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com<mailto:EdwardS at advanced-conversion.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 12:04:38 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com> <
> cq-contest at contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A DX Contest on the WARC bands -- A terrible idea
>
> Too bad they changed it.  It would have brought some badly needed CW and
> SSB activity to the WARC bands.  It was hardly a contest in the normal
> contest sense.  Bouvet will bring A LOT more noise onto the bands when it
> appears that this suggested activity event would have.
>
>
> Ed  N1UR
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com<mailto: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
>