[UK-CONTEST] CQWW 2004

[Lee Volante]

Hi Doug,

Good question.  The USA has fixed restrictions as an immediate example.  And
as you mention speeding tickets, USA stations can also be reprimanded by
'observers' who might spot them operating out of band or with a poor signal
etc.  I don't know the details, but I think this starts off as a friendly
hint, but presumably with penalties for repeated offences.   Also the USA
guys should not call above 14.347 to keep their signal within band, but you
often find others camped out on 14350.  On the Announced Operations list the
Guam crew tell us to listen from 7.075 to 7.100 for them - no joy here (of
course.)

I don't know if any Europeans have similar fixed bandplans, which would
presumably create a disadvantage against other Europeans with the existing
R1 40m allocation during major contests.  The US 40m phone allocation is
wide enough, so there's not going to be too much of a problem following it.
Perhaps the US guys get frustrated at SSB multipliers in contests hiding
below the US phone segment on the higher bands.  They don't seem to
transgress it anyhow.

In the main, I thought contesters did pretty well on 40m at the weekend.  In
the daytime, as has already been said, general adherence to the preferred
bandplan, and I also heard a GB station still making QSOs in the melee.  At
night, most of the traffic was above .040, and whilst there were some
Europeans below, the majority were DX.  There were some kHz free for CW.  If
you're operating split, and so don't have your own transmission to 'make a
space' on 40m, below .040 seems very tempting.

Some of the US guys always seem to have operated split to very low freqs on
40m, and I don't recall complaints about that in particular before, only if
stations, and particularly EU stations start calling CQ there.  Different
stations sending single calls and reports on 7.009 has a much smaller effect
than calling CQ there.

My own halfway-house approach is that I will call other stations below .040,
but would not feel comfortable calling CQ there.  There's another argument
that even by calling the other guy, I'm giving him a QSO and so condoning
the activity etc.   Whilst we could get tough on any 'bandplan violation'
transmissions, I don't know whether it would be truly successful unless the
whole of Europe would do the same thing, preferably at the same time,
otherwise some countries would be disadvantaged.  I would certainly have
been a few multipliers short.  (Hmmm, speaking of which, I can see a well
worded counter argument from lots of European guys coming up about us not
using 7.100 to 7.200 for contests until everyone's got access to it.)   :-)

73,

Lee G0MTN

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Roberts" <g0wmw at arrl.net>
To: "Les Allwood" <g3vqo at mapleleaf.plus.com>; "UK Contest"
<uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] CQWW 2004


> Um, forgive my stupidity, but I thought the bandplans were voluntary?
>
> Pop this in your browser:  http://www.iaru-r2.org/hf_e.htm  - it takes you
> to the IARU Region 2 website.  One of the footnotes to the excellent
> comparison table of regions 1, 2 & 3 bandplans says,
>
> "These bandplans are voluntary and as such cannot legally be enforced,
> except in some countries in which the bandplans are written into the
> national regulations." - anyone know which countries those are?
> _______________
>
> Can I suggest a parallel to this strange allegation in that, since they
> issue the licences, we should hold the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
> responsible for all speeding and parking tickets?
> _______________
>
> Surely, if conditions are attached to the use of short calls, people will
> just stop using them?
>
> 73,
> Doug G0WMW
>