--part1_c9.1df71c84.29ac3088_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello SECC Contesters,
I operated a couple of hours in the CQ 160 SSB contest and made less than 20
contacts (all above 1843). I spent most of the time tuning around observing
the operating conditions under the new band plan. Just after dark on the
first night, there were several workable DX SSB stations operating below
1843, none of which were listening above 1843. Several Canadian & US stations
were working the DX stations below 1843, violating the new ARRL band plan and
being attacked by "Band Police" with harsh words and demands to QSY. This
made the contest very undesirable to operate since there were apparent
conflicting contest rules and intentional QRM being made toward the
contesters. I also noted that CW stations were intentionally interfering with
stations operating below 1843 on SSB. This is not a case were the frequency
was already busy with CW, simply CW operators looking to enforce the ARRL
band plan by intentionally QRM'ing the SSB contest stations.
After reading some of the comments on the South East Contest Club (SECC)
reflector, there seems to be several contesters "finally" opposing the new
160-meter band plan. The time to get involved with these type matters is when
they are being debated, not after the changes have taken place. Read the
comment below, made by Bill, W4ZV, during a discussion we had in January 2002
concerning the 160 meter ARRL band plan. He makes it sound as if AA4LR and
myself were the only two guys that opposed the mechanics of the plan.
At 21:03 01/17/2002 EST, W4ZV wrote:
>FYI 100% of the contest community that has commented thus
>far has been positive, including K4VX, K5ZD, N2NT, NT1N, W0UN,
>K0UK, W0YG, W0YK, K9UWA, N4AF, K0HA, W2CS, K8MFO, WA9IRV, K8PO, N1EU,
>K4TEA, WX0B, N2EA and K3BU...not to mention K1ZM and myself. There
>may be a few more who did not give their calls and whose names I don't
>recognize. Is it must be something in the water down in Atlanta that
>you and AA4LR are drinking? :-)
Do we push for the FCC to adopt the existing ARRL band plan?
Assuming the FCC passed the petition to prevent SSB below 1843, it would
resolve the immediate contesting rule problem and level the playing field for
US stations during a 160 SSB contest. Even though the CQ160 contest is a
World-Wide contest and other countries can operate SSB below 1843, there is a
separate contest category for US stations. However, this would reduce the
chances of a US station from being competitive in worldwide competition due
to the IARU frequency restrictions in several 160 meter SSB contest. My main
concern with the ARRL band plan, if adopted by the FCC, is that it would
impact the 160 CW contest, both ARRL and CQ. Even if the plan allows for CW
operation above 1843, SSB stations will be intentionally interfering with the
CW contester operating above 1843 after it is adopted. There is not enough
room to support a CW contest between 1800 and 1843 now, not to mention any
future growth for contesting efforts.
Do we push the ARRL to go back to the old band plan (Gentleman's band)?
This plan was in effect for decades and has worked 95 percent of the time.
Most of the 160 operators were willing to allow contesting, both CW & SSB for
a few weekends per year. DX guys liked the contest since it brought DX
activity to the band.
What has changed?
A special interest group is at work here with a mission to protect the band.
The main concern from this group is preventing the Bubba nets from taking
over the entire band with SSB activity during a normal week day or weekend
operation, disrupting CW activity. I must applaud the effort made by these
guys but it has serious negative effects to contesting on the 160 band. I
made considerable effort to make my concerns known to the persons pushing the
plan and felt they were not heard or understood. Again, from the statement
made by W4ZV last January, listed above, there were very little opposition
made from the contesting community. BTW...I did hear one of the stations
W4ZV listed, operating below 1843 last weekend on SSB. Perhaps some folks
have changed their minds about the plan.
What can we do now? (GET INVOLVED)
1. Ask the ARRL to reevaluate the 160-meter band plan.
2. Work with the special interest group to preserve the band from the Bubba
nets, moving up from 75 meters.
3. Ask our CQ and ARRL officials to work closer together to prevent future
contest policy conflicts.
4. Encourage the IARU to work toward a constant world wide160-meter band
plan.
5. Report non-contest stations to the FCC that intentionally interfere with
legitimate contest operating (any band). Mr. Hollingsworth e-mail address is
rholling@fcc.gov
Please feel free to pass my suggestions on to other contest clubs.
Ron W4WA
--part1_c9.1df71c84.29ac3088_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3>Hello SECC Contesters,<BR>
<BR>
I operated a couple of hours in the CQ 160 SSB contest and made less than 20
contacts (all above 1843). I spent most of the time tuning around observing the
operating conditions under the new band plan. Just after dark on the first
night, there were several workable DX SSB stations operating below 1843, none
of which were listening above 1843. Several Canadian & US stations were
working the DX stations below 1843, violating the new ARRL band plan and being
attacked by "Band Police" with harsh words and demands to QSY. This made the
contest very undesirable to operate since there were apparent conflicting
contest rules and intentional QRM being made toward the contesters. I also
noted that CW stations were intentionally interfering with stations operating
below 1843 on SSB. This is not a case were the frequency was already busy with
CW, simply CW operators looking to enforce the ARRL band plan by intentionally
QRM'ing the SSB contest stations.<BR>
<BR>
After reading some of the comments on the South East Contest Club (SECC)
reflector, there seems to be several contesters "finally" opposing the new
160-meter band plan. The time to get involved with these type matters is when
they are being debated, not after the changes have taken place. Read the
comment below, made by Bill, W4ZV, during a discussion we had in January 2002
concerning the 160 meter ARRL band plan. He makes it sound as if AA4LR and
myself were the only two guys that opposed the mechanics of the plan. <BR>
<BR>
At 21:03 01/17/2002 EST, W4ZV wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>FYI 100% of the contest community that has commented thus <BR>
>far has been positive, including K4VX, K5ZD, N2NT, NT1N, W0UN,<BR>
>K0UK, W0YG, W0YK, K9UWA, N4AF, K0HA, W2CS, K8MFO, WA9IRV, K8PO, N1EU,<BR>
>K4TEA, WX0B, N2EA and K3BU...not to mention K1ZM and myself. There<BR>
>may be a few more who did not give their calls and whose names I don't<BR>
>recognize. Is it must be something in the water down in Atlanta that<BR>
>you and AA4LR are drinking? :-)<BR>
<BR>
Do we push for the FCC to adopt the existing ARRL band plan?<BR>
<BR>
Assuming the FCC passed the petition to prevent SSB below 1843, it would
resolve the immediate contesting rule problem and level the playing field for
US stations during a 160 SSB contest. Even though the CQ160 contest is a
World-Wide contest and other countries can operate SSB below 1843, there is a
separate contest category for US stations. However, this would reduce the
chances of a US station from being competitive in worldwide competition due to
the IARU frequency restrictions in several 160 meter SSB contest. My main
concern with the ARRL band plan, if adopted by the FCC, is that it would impact
the 160 CW contest, both ARRL and CQ. Even if the plan allows for CW operation
above 1843, SSB stations will be intentionally interfering with the CW
contester operating above 1843 after it is adopted. There is not enough room to
support a CW contest between 1800 and 1843 now, not to mention any future
growth for contesting efforts. <BR>
<BR>
Do we push the ARRL to go back to the old band plan (Gentleman's band)?<BR>
<BR>
This plan was in effect for decades and has worked 95 percent of the time. Most
of the 160 operators were willing to allow contesting, both CW & SSB for a
few weekends per year. DX guys liked the contest since it brought DX activity
to the band. <BR>
<BR>
What has changed?<BR>
<BR>
A special interest group is at work here with a mission to protect the band.
The main concern from this group is preventing the Bubba nets from taking over
the entire band with SSB activity during a normal week day or weekend
operation, disrupting CW activity. I must applaud the effort made by
these guys but it has serious negative effects to contesting on the 160 band. I
made considerable effort to make my concerns known to the persons pushing the
plan and felt they were not heard or understood. Again, from the statement made
by W4ZV last January, listed above, there were very little opposition made from
the contesting community. BTW...I did hear one of the stations W4ZV
listed, operating below 1843 last weekend on SSB. Perhaps some folks have
changed their minds about the plan. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
What can we do now? (GET INVOLVED)<BR>
<BR>
1. Ask the ARRL to reevaluate the 160-meter band plan. <BR>
2. Work with the special interest group to preserve the band from the Bubba
nets, moving up from 75 meters. <BR>
3. Ask our CQ and ARRL officials to work closer together to prevent future
contest policy conflicts. <BR>
4. Encourage the IARU to work toward a constant world wide160-meter band plan.
<BR>
5. Report non-contest stations to the FCC that intentionally interfere with
legitimate contest operating (any band). Mr. Hollingsworth e-mail address is
rholling@fcc.gov<BR>
<BR>
Please feel free to pass my suggestions on to other contest clubs. <BR>
<BR>
Ron W4WA<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_c9.1df71c84.29ac3088_boundary--
--
SECC on the Web: http://secc.contesting.com/
Submissions: secc@contesting.com
Administrative requests: secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-secc@contesting.com
|