Revoke their affiliation?!? Yikes!!!
I think we can work it out with them first. Explaining to them why it
is a bad idea.
Perhaps some of you can talk to Fred, K1VR who is the director of that
division and let him handle it. I will also send him a note.
73
RIa, N2RJ
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:06, Stanley Zawrotny <k4sbz.stan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We tell people who complain about contesting that they have the WARC bands
> specifically designated to be contest free. How will we be able to continue
> to say that if we let any little group declare that the gentleman’s agreement
> doesn’t apply to them?
>
> I think the ARRL, although they have no authority, should “speak to” the guys
> in VT about their short-sighted and ungentlemanly decision. They could at
> least revoke their ARRL affiliation.
>
> I played in all three SQPs last weekend, but will boycott any SQP that does
> not abide by agreed upon practices.
>
> Stan, K4SBZ
>
> "Real radio bounces off the sky."
>
> > On Feb 6, 2020, at 4:49 PM, Richard F DDonna NN3W <richnn3w@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > I don't think I could be any more categorically opposed to the notion of
> > contesting on the WARC bands.
> >
> > Contesters often get a black eye for using the bands - especially on
> > weekends. The WARC bands are absolute refuges for
> > those who do not want to contest or like contesting.
> >
> > The addition of up to three bands of hardware is a massive disincentive
> > to casual contesters. Casual ops are challenged enough to be capable on
> > 6 bands; now they want three additional bands?
> >
> > The WARC bands are (at most) 100 KHz wide with no clear segmentation
> > between CW and SSB. On top of that, 30 meters is 50 KHz wide and is not
> > a universal allocation. So, we're now going to occupy the WARC bands
> > wire to wire with contest operations - especially when -many- hams
> > understood them to be guaranteed refuges from contest operating.
> >
> > Aboslutely nothing good wille come from expansion of a contest onto 30
> > meters.
> >
> > 73 Rich NN3W
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 1:41 PM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Personally i think it send the wrong message.
> >>
> >> These bands are supposed to be contest free. Even if it affects almost no
> >> one it will bring negativity toward the Radiosport community.
> >>
> >> 73
> >> Ria, N2RJ
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:27 PM Mike Smith VE9AA <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I guess in the VT QSO party it's a thing. I sent an email to Mitch, W1SJ
> >>> to
> >>> voice my displeasure/concern.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From http://www.arrl.org/contest-update-issues?issue=2020-02-05
> >>>
> >>> and http://www.ranv.org/vtqso.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ".CONVERSATION
> >>>
> >>> WARC Contesting?
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps you missed it. I certainly did. In the rules of the 2020 Vermont
> >>> QSO
> >>> Party <http://www.ranv.org/vtqso.html> , is the complete section on how
> >>> FT4
> >>> and FT8 contacts can be made for the VT QSO Party. There are a bunch of
> >>> rules related to FTx mode contacts for the VT QSO party listed, including
> >>> how the standard exchange of grid square is to be used, and this, rule 6:
> >>>
> >>> "6. FT8/FT4 contacts can be made on the recognized FT8 frequencies of
> >>> 10.136/10.140, 18.110/18.104 and 24.920/24.919 MHz upper side band. No
> >>> other
> >>> modes are allowed on 30, 17 and 12 meters."
> >>>
> >>> The potential problem is that the frequencies cited in rule 6 are WARC
> >>> bands
> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WARC_bands> . There's been a gentleman's
> >>> agreement among... I guess, "gentlemen," that the WARC bands won't be
> >> used
> >>> for contesting. Certainly you won't find any ARRL Contests
> >>> <
> >>>
> >> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/HFContestingGuidlines_
> >>> 201411.pdf
> >>> <
> >> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/HFContestingGuidlines_201411.pdf
> >>>>
> >>> using the WARC bands. CQ Magazine and WWROF sponsored contests
> >>> also disallow usage of WARC bands for their events. The verbiage in the
> >>> ARRL
> >>> Contesting Guidelines
> >>> <
> >>>
> >> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/HFContestingGuidlines_
> >>> 201411.pdf
> >>> <
> >> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Contest%20-%20General/HFContestingGuidlines_201411.pdf
> >>>>
> >>> is the most explicit, stating the rules as well as the
> >>> rationale: "WARC bands are not used for contests, therefore moving to
> >> these
> >>> bands during contest weekends is an option for casual operators and rag
> >>> chewers."
> >>>
> >>> Hams are a self-regulating sort, by and large. It would be pretty obvious
> >>> in
> >>> other modes if someone were contesting on the WARC bands, since they
> >> might
> >>> have the tells of sending "CQ TEST." Or if someone was soliciting a
> >> contest
> >>> QSO without being obvious about it, they'd be taking their chances in
> >>> getting someone that wanted to have a genuine conversation beyond "59"
> >> and
> >>> their state. That kind of stuff really ruins the rate.
> >>>
> >>> But with the FT modes, the "regular" non-contest exchange is basically
> >> the
> >>> same as the contest exchange. You really can't tell whether someone
> >> calling
> >>> CQ from a particular grid is trying to use the band for a contest
> >> contact,
> >>> or just wants a regular FTx contact.
> >>>
> >>> I've made some FT4 and FT8 contacts both outside of contests and as part
> >> of
> >>> the WW Digi DX and ARRL RTTY Roundup. Outside of a contest period, I've
> >>> decoded people doing directional CQs, probably to work on their WAS
> >>> awards...or maybe they just like one of that state's sports teams. But in
> >>> the future, I might wonder if another QSO Party changed their rules to
> >>> allow
> >>> contacts on the WARC bands as well.
> >>>
> >>> In my opinion, allowing FTx contacts to count for the VT QSO Party may
> >> not
> >>> have been thought all the way through. Intended to spur greater
> >>> participation, it's not breaking any regulations but runs counter to
> >>> worldwide consensus that the WARC bands of 30, 17, and 12 meters should
> >> be
> >>> contest-free to give non-contesters some breathing room on busy weekends.
> >>> This has worked very, very well for more than 30 years. While one of the
> >>> smaller state QSO parties will not be too disruptive, there's no reason
> >> to
> >>> open the door to bigger events that certainly will cause problems.
> >>>
> >>> <snip> N9ADG."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Wow- I don't have words.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -Mike VE9AA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mike, Coreen & Corey
> >>>
> >>> Keswick Ridge, NB
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|