This window is poorly defined and confusing. As it is worded there seems to be
nothing wrong with US or EU stations calling CQ in the window for DX. That
practice is defeating of the purpose which is to have a segment which is free of
local QRM to hear the long-haul stuff in.
I think we should have a window where no W/VE or EU call CQ period. Then we
might see more NA to Africa/Asia and EU to Carribean/SA contacts. 100 watt
Cubans could probably make themselves heard in EU if there wasn't a wall of QRM
from EU stations trying to run USA. I know that Africa would be worked more if
the window had less NA/EU in it. In the comments sections of the results you
frequently read comments from rare DX stations like "couldn't make myself heard
through the wall of NA/EU QRM"
The well-equipped stations from Eastern NA and EU will work each other through
the local QRM, window or not. I do have compassion for Western NA stations
trying to work EU. What do you guys think of the current system where the
window is fairly empty on this side and fairly busy on EU side? Does it help
you find stations to call? Do you work more by answering or calling CQs? I
would think that calling CQ high in the band would at least get you some
contacts with the countries that have broad allocations. If 1830-35 was clear
of W/VE/EU cqing maybe you could QSX there for other countries.
Anyway, most of the controversy is because of the vague definition. It should
be more precise so we can at least agree on what the rule is if not what it
should be. I move that we change it to 1830-1835 no CQing by W/VE or EU. Or we
could make it more similar to what it is now and say no CQing by W/VE and let EU
go ahead. Then at least we wouldn't have to fight over whether it is ok for USA
to call CQ for DX.
73 Rob K2WI
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P
|