[VHFcontesting] ARRL VHF+ contest proposals: input invited

[W0eea at aol.com]

To VHF+ contesters and the ARRL VHF Contesting Committee:
 
While your basic goals are desirable,  your recommended methods of 
achieving them are mostly counter to both the stated goals and the 
intent of VHF contesting in general.  Specifically:
 
1)  Changes in rover rules:  The only change that would interest me
in roving again ( I used to rove regularly when I lived in 
Illinois ),  would be to change the rules back to the original rover
rules.  As for new rovers,  anything that limits their ability to
operate and score points is detrimental to getting new rovers on the
air.  I have no quarrel with rover squared (circling) operation.
It is difficult,  tedious,  and far less fun than normal operation,
and as an operator who has operated in that manner in the past,  
and also operated with a major Midwestern Multi-Operator station
on many occasions,  building a large six or seven figure score
in a rover is harder than doing so at a Multi-Op station regardless
of the tactics used.  I do agree that the rover score should not
count toward club scores though.  That way a rover must contact 
as many other stations as possible if the club is to benefit.
Since rovers only compete with each other that solves the problem
as far as I am concerned.  As for captive rovers,  a specific rule
that rovers must contact at least three (or four) different
stations to submit a score from a given grid would solve that
problem.  The captive rover rule should not apply to Multi-Op
contacts with their own operators however.  
 
2)  QSO Point changes:  As long as they are made in a way that
encourages operation on bands and modes that the contestants have 
not previously operated on I am for such a change.  Any change that
would discourage operation on more bands and modes is contrary to 
the long term health of ham radio in general.  If the price for
the long term existence of Ham Radio is a few less logs submitted
in a given contest,  but more microwave contacts over the long
term,  the so be it.  If you want Ham Radio to continue to exist 
in any recognizable form don't discourage microwave activity in 
any way.  If you want to make changes reward those who add bands 
and modes (higher QSO points for new digital modes for example).  
QSOs with rover stations should not be awarded less points than
equivalent contacts with 'base' stations under any circumstances.
Contacts with rovers in non-adjacent grids should be rewarded with
higher QSO point scores rather than lower,  as they are usually
harder to make,  considering that rovers usually have less antenna
and power than fixed stations. Your recommendations might bring in a
few new operators,  but many old timers would be inclined to drop out 
of contesting if they are implemented.  Total log submissions will
drop not increase.
 
3)  June VHF QSO Party 50-1296 only:  Living in Colorado,  as I do
now,  I am adjacent to many mountains appropriate for microwave
activity which cannot be accessed in January but can in June.
If you must limit a contest to less bands than are now allowed,
and that is a really bad idea as far as I am concerned,  then the
January contest would be far more appropriate than either
June or September.  
 
4)  New Categories in Jan/Jun/Sept:  I was very much against
the creation of the Limited-Multi-operator class for the reasons
stated above.  Stations that used to make microwave contacts
now don't because they don't get any points for them.  This
is contrary to the long term health and well being of
Ham Radio.
 
OTOH your proposal for a time limited hilltopper category
is an excellent idea.  Ten to twelve hours would be more 
appropriate than six however as that would allow either 
a full daylight operation or two half days.  Such operations
have been seen here in Colorado and I'm sure the operators
would appreciate a class allowing them to compete with
each other.
 
5)  Other recommended changes:  a), b), d), e), and f) are
all good ideas.
c)  Elimination of multi-operator contacts with their own 
operators above 2.3 GHz is a disincentive to operate more
bands and modes.  Since the only stations effected are all
in the same class this is a very bad idea.
 
(6)  New Microwave contest:  I agree with the expansion
of the existing 10 GHz contest as a replacement for the
UHF contest in its present form.  However we in Colorado
cannot access the mountains in April and usually not in May
while we can access them in July, August,  and September.  
I therefore recommend the additional weekend be later in the
year than April or May to allow the maximum use of available
terrain in the contest.
 
 
(7)  EME Contest: 1),  2)  and 3)  are all good ideas.
 
(8)  Changes already implemented:  Good work,  especially
with LoTW.  When I submitted logs to LoTW with 900 MHz
contacts in them I was told (because of a minor problem
since resolved) that mine where the first and only logs 
submitted up to that time with such contacts in them.
Maximizing LoTW availability and ease of use for
VHF,  UHF,  and microwave activity will be a 
major factor in bringing more activity on those bands.
 
(9)  Awards:  1), 2), and 3) are good ideas.  
4) The location requirement for a non-rover station 
to get VUCC credit for contacts should not change.
Rovers should be able to get reverse contact credit
for contacts with stations in one grid only and within
50 miles of each other.
 
Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinions on
the future of VHF and above contesting.
 
73,
 
Jim
w0eea at arrl.net