[VHFcontesting] Comments on ARRL VHF/UHF Contest Rules Change Proposals
k1whs at metrocast.net
Sat Dec 6 19:24:29 EST 2014
One problem with internet activity is that people tend to hang out on
chat pages and run to a ham band, make a QSO and then go back to the chat
page. I have seen a drop in real radio activity around here as chat pages
became more common. The poor guys with no internet connection are at a
disadvantage then. They have trouble even tail ending an internet influenced
QSO. (Tell me about it!)_I did not have any internet at my remote ham shack
in the past, and was getting killed in the Sprints etc as a result. Being in
an outlying area, the number of people aiming my way were minimized as a
result of my not being connected to the internet. Oh well, I bit the bullet
and installed a high speed 5 GHz link up to the shack. I now have a high
speed internet connection with very strong signal levels even during ice and
snow storms. So I can go with the flow either way!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marshall-K5QE" <k5qe at k5qe.com>
To: "vhfcontesting at contesting.com" <VHFcontesting at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Comments on ARRL VHF/UHF Contest Rules Change
> Hello Jay, James, and others interested in this topic. The Committee
> identified three "goals" in their post.
> 1) Removal of the current prohibition on the use of Amateur and
> non-Amateur forms of assistance for all operator categories, with such use
> having no impact on entry category;
> 2) Removal of the current prohibition on self-spotting for all operator
> categories; and
> 3) Allowing single operators to transmit on more than one band at a time.
> Regarding 1), this allows Single Op stations to "look" at the Internet. I
> have never understood why there were so many (silly) restrictions on the
> Single Op stations. I once posted that the ARRL rules discriminate
> against the Single Op stations...and many folks agreed with me. Many
> Single Ops use the Internet now, but of course, no one can prove it one
> way or the other. Removing this prohibition will put everyone on the same
> page as far as looking at the Internet is concerned.
> Regarding 2), this rule is of the utmost importance. Currently, the CQ WW
> VHF contests allow stations using digital MS or digital EME to "self post"
> their Call, Frequency, and Sequence ONLY. It is no coincidence that the
> CQ WW VHF contest is the best contest that we have. I know that the HF
> Philosophy types are having heart palpitations, but they don't operate VHF
> contests. In any HF contest, you can find a never ending stream of
> stations to work. That is most certainly not the case in the VHF affairs.
> Self posting, i.e. Announcements, will allow stations to find each other
> during the contests. Rovers would be able to let the big stations know
> where they were and when they were ready to run. Stations searching for
> MS contacts or EME contacts will be able to find others using the same
> methods. Most especially, the smaller stations will be able to find the
> "big guns" if they know where to look. That means more QSOs for everyone.
> Regarding 3), I originally saw this as just removing another silly
> restriction from the Single Ops. Jay's comments have caused me to
> re-think this one. I am and always have been a Multi Op station, so for
> me, transmitting on multiple bands at once is just normal. What Jay is
> saying is that this might / will give the stations in the "Golden
> Crescent" another unfair advantage over the Single Ops in the rest of the
> country(Jay...I hope I restated that correctly).
> However, I have run into Single Ops that use SO2R techniques to call CQ
> alternatively on 6M and 2M in such a way that they are never transmitting
> on two bands at the same time. They call it "dueling CQs". The effect of
> this is that they ARE ON two bands at the same time without ever
> transmitting on two bands at the same time. This is clearly just a
> technological solution to skirt around the current rule. On the other
> hand, I don't know of anyone around here that is doing this, so maybe this
> practice is not widespread.
> Hence, I am neutral on 3). I am waiting to be re-educated on this one.
> Please try to keep the comments relatively civil....
> The Committee also did some nice house cleaning on the FM side of things.
> They propose removing the restriction on 146.52 and on use of repeaters to
> solicit contacts. The contacts must still be made on simplex frequencies.
> This will not help me personally, as there is essentially no FM activity
> around here for me to work. But it may help others. Unfortunately, there
> is the distinct possibility that this may only give another advantage to
> the NE stations where there are a lot more stations close by, many of them
> little FM stations. I agree that the NE stations do not need any more
> advantages over the rest of us.....
> As always, your comments are of interest to me, Pro or Con. Flames,
> diatribes, etc. will go directly to the bit bucket....they will not pass
> GO and will not collect $200. Respectful, well thought out comments will
> not collect $200 either, but that is another story.....
> The best of Holiday Seasons to everyone....
> 73 Marshall K5QE
> On 12/5/2014 6:12 PM, Keith Morehouse wrote:
>> If you don't live on the east coast and want to top 10 in a VHF contest
>> someday, I would urge you to think long and hard about adopting this
>> Jay W9RM
>> Keith J Morehouse
>> via Droid Inc2
>> On Dec 5, 2014 4:29 PM, "James Duffey" <jamesduffey at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> If you have comments on the proposed rules changes for VHF/UHF contests,
>>> they are due December 15 to the committee at < vhf-input at arrl.org >.
>>> I personally am not going to campaign here for any of the rules changes,
>>> except for the one allowing single op stations to have multiple signals
>>> different bands at the same time without being in the multi category. I
>>> think that this will increase activity as it will increase signals on
>>> air, so someone who tunes to the bands during a contest is more likely
>>> hear activity. This should also help with the problem of people ignoring
>>> the higher bands when 6M is open by encouraging ops to use SO2R
>>> If 6M is open, the single op can still CQ on two at the same time, and
>>> pickup stations calling there. I don’t see any down side to this
>>> change, and I encourage you to comment favorably on this proposed rules
>>> In the past there has been a lot of discussion here, and elsewhere, on
>>> assistance in VHF/UHF contests, and I hope that those who have been
>>> on both sides of that issue have made or will make their input to the
>>> committee known. The proposed rules are very liberal with respect to
>>> assistance, even with respect to the CQ WW VHF contest rules, so I
>>> encourage you to read the proposed changes and ponder their consequences
>>> for you and others. Then make constructive comments on the proposals.
>>> The proposed rules allow self spotting pretty much in all categories and
>>> pretty through all vehicles. This is a big change with potentially big
>>> consequences, so I encourage you to comment on this as well. Consider
>>> self spotting is not thought of well by most of the HF contesters and
>>> are some of the new activity that the committee is trying to attract.
>>> Read and study the proposed rules changes. Make your concerns and
>>> known to the committee now. Don’t pass on this opportunity. If rules are
>>> adapted that you don’t like and you didn’t comment on them to the rule
>>> makers, then it will be hard to seriously take your criticism of them
>>> later. Just saying. - Duffey KK6MC
>>> James Duffey
>>> Cedar Crest NM
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
More information about the VHFcontesting