Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Don Beattie]

That could be one reading, Don.

The other is that WRC Agenda time is intensely sought after, for many changes 
to spectrum allocations.

IARU was confronted with the prospect of failing on both its bids for WRC19 
Agenda items and in effect prioritised the other (global allocation at 50 MHz) 
above the  Region 1 1.8MHz issue. Parts of the world (again particularly Region 
1) don't have anything at 50 MHz and that seemed to offer the best prospect of 
gain for the most. So AI 1.1 at WRC 19 addresses that issue, and 1.8MHz 
extension/relaxation fell by the wayside. Again the 50MHz case results from 
spectrum clearance after band 1 broadcasting has dwindled to nearly zero.

73

Don, G3BJ / G5W

This email is confidential and intended for the use of the intended recipient 
only. If you have received this email in error, please inform the sender 
immediately and then delete it. 

> On 6 Mar 2016, at 08:22, Donald Chester  wrote:
> 
> So what I read into all this is:  that those shared and excluded frequencies 
> are allocated to other occupants that now rarely ( if ever) use them, but 
> that national administrations don't think the amateur radio issue is 
> important enough to take on the task of co-ordinating with other countries in 
> the region, to fully return them to amateurs?
> 
> Don, k4kyv
> 
> 
>>> 
> IARU tried at WRC 2015 to get an agenda item for WRC 2019 on the global
> harmonisation of the 160m band. We failed - there was simply not enough
> support from national administrations, many of whom could not see the
> priority. So although IARU can continue to seek harmonisation, the reality
> is that this is not going to happen any time soon, sadly. 
>>> 
> 
>> The use of that spectrum by others has reduced very significantly. I cannot
> say that there are no other users, but it's not like it used to be when the
> current spectrum allocations were originally agreed.
> 
>> That is the reason that IARU raised the matter as a potential agenda item
> for WRC 19.
> 
>> If you look at the detail of the allocations, some countries are observing
> the power levels implicit in the ITU schedules, whilst others are not.
> 
>> There may, therefore, be some scope for national agreements to improve the
> situation.  
>> 73 Don, G3BJ / G5W
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Donald Chester]

So what I read into all this is:  that those shared and excluded frequencies 
are allocated to other occupants that now rarely ( if ever) use them, but that 
national administrations don't think the amateur radio issue is important 
enough to take on the task of co-ordinating with other countries in the region, 
to fully return them to amateurs?

Don, k4kyv


>>
IARU tried at WRC 2015 to get an agenda item for WRC 2019 on the global
harmonisation of the 160m band. We failed - there was simply not enough
support from national administrations, many of whom could not see the
priority. So although IARU can continue to seek harmonisation, the reality
is that this is not going to happen any time soon, sadly. 
>>

> The use of that spectrum by others has reduced very significantly. I cannot
say that there are no other users, but it's not like it used to be when the
current spectrum allocations were originally agreed.

> That is the reason that IARU raised the matter as a potential agenda item
for WRC 19.

> If you look at the detail of the allocations, some countries are observing
the power levels implicit in the ITU schedules, whilst others are not.

> There may, therefore, be some scope for national agreements to improve the
situation.  
> 73 Don, G3BJ / G5W
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Don Beattie]

Don,

The use of that spectrum by others has reduced very significantly. I cannot
say that there are no other users, but it's not like it used to be when the
current spectrum allocations were originally agreed.

That is the reason that IARU raised the matter as a potential agenda item
for WRC 19.

If you look at the detail of the allocations, some countries are observing
the power levels implicit in the ITU schedules, whilst others are not.

There may, therefore, be some scope for national agreements to improve the
situation. 

73

Don, G3BJ / G5W

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Donald
Chester
Sent: 04 March 2016 00:39
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

> Mike - I agree the objective, but the reality is a little harder!
>
> The 160 allocations across Europe, for example, vary widely. 1800-1810 
> is
not generally part of the allocated spectrum. Various countries have various
parts of the band with varying power privileges (you'll have seen
http://www.iaru-r1.org/index.php/documents/Documents/HF/160m-allocations-in-
IARU-R1-rev-7-Jan-2015.pdf/ I am sure )
>
IARU tried at WRC 2015 to get an agenda item for WRC 2019 on the global
harmonisation of the 160m band. We failed - there was simply not enough
support from national administrations, many of whom could not see the
priority. So although IARU can continue to seek harmonisation, the reality
is that this is not going to happen any time soon, sadly. 
>
>Don, G3BJ / G5W (Presidnet IARU Region 1)

Maybe someone living in Europe can tell us what are the services that have
priority on 1800-1810 and 1840-2000 in Regions 1 and 3 that seem to be such
sacred cows that amateurs remain severely restricted?  Are those frequencies
actually being used for anything that serves a useful purpose, or is this
merely a case of administrative inertia and intransigence? Ever since the
demise of LORAN 35 years ago, I have yet to hear any non-amateur traffic on
those frequencies, other than occasional low-power fishnet beacons. I should
think that if they were actually in widespread use in other parts of the
world for essential non-amateur communication, that occasionally some of
those signals  would be audible here in N America, as is certainly the case
within the 3500-4000 kHz band.

Here in the US, 1705-1800 is reserved for Radiolocation, but that segment is
all but devoid of signals of any kind. The GPS system rendered Radiolocation
in this part of the spectrum obsolete years ago and the beacon transmitters
eventually all went dark.  The FCC went so far recently as to re-allocate
1900-2000 to amateurs on a primary basis, deleting Radiolocation altogether,
which had previously shared that segment with amateurs and radiolocation the
primary user.  Not to mention the LORAN radionavigation system that was
taken off the band in the early 1980s.

Don k4kyv
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7442 / Virus Database: 4537/11741 - Release Date: 03/03/16

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Donald Chester]

> Mike - I agree the objective, but the reality is a little harder!
>
> The 160 allocations across Europe, for example, vary widely. 1800-1810 is
not generally part of the allocated spectrum. Various countries have various
parts of the band with varying power privileges (you'll have seen
http://www.iaru-r1.org/index.php/documents/Documents/HF/160m-allocations-in-
IARU-R1-rev-7-Jan-2015.pdf/ I am sure )
>
IARU tried at WRC 2015 to get an agenda item for WRC 2019 on the global
harmonisation of the 160m band. We failed - there was simply not enough
support from national administrations, many of whom could not see the
priority. So although IARU can continue to seek harmonisation, the reality
is that this is not going to happen any time soon, sadly. 
>
>Don, G3BJ / G5W (Presidnet IARU Region 1)

Maybe someone living in Europe can tell us what are the services that have 
priority on 1800-1810 and 1840-2000 in Regions 1 and 3 that seem to be such 
sacred cows that amateurs remain severely restricted?  Are those frequencies 
actually being used for anything that serves a useful purpose, or is this 
merely a case of administrative inertia and intransigence? Ever since the 
demise of LORAN 35 years ago, I have yet to hear any non-amateur traffic on 
those frequencies, other than occasional low-power fishnet beacons. I should 
think that if they were actually in widespread use in other parts of the world 
for essential non-amateur communication, that occasionally some of those 
signals  would be audible here in N America, as is certainly the case within 
the 3500-4000 kHz band.

Here in the US, 1705-1800 is reserved for Radiolocation, but that segment is 
all but devoid of signals of any kind. The GPS system rendered Radiolocation in 
this part of the spectrum obsolete years ago and the beacon transmitters 
eventually all went dark.  The FCC went so far recently as to re-allocate 
1900-2000 to amateurs on a primary basis, deleting Radiolocation altogether, 
which had previously shared that segment with amateurs and radiolocation the 
primary user.  Not to mention the LORAN radionavigation system that was taken 
off the band in the early 1980s.

Don k4kyv
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Bill Cromwell]

Hi,

I am resurrecting an aging, 'Rip VanWinkle" radio that includes 160 
meters. I was finally ready to apply power for a first test and all of 
those naughty SSB contesters on 160 meters provided me with a lot of 
test "fodder" on the receive side. I wish to thank all of the SSB 
contesters for filling the band with signals.


The receiver part of the radio is working very well now. Next I'll get 
the TX side working right and then repair the tuning dial. Move over a 
little so I can get on too.


73,

Bill  KU8H
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[jcjacob...@q.com]

Yo, 


Have we beat this poor horse to death yet??? It's all interesting, but I think 
we're starting to go over ground already covered. Plus, somehow, we've dragged 
VHF freqs into the discussion. 


(Let the flames begin, so to speak) 


K9WN Jake 
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Jim Brown]

On Tue,3/1/2016 2:01 PM, Roger Parsons via Topband wrote:

OK, so there is no reason at all from a contester's perspective why all the 
contests and QSO parties that have low 160m usage should not have SSB 
restricted to 1820 and above, and I would appreciate your help in achieving 
this.


My question is why have SSB DX contests on 160M at all?  JA has no SSB 
segment on 160M, which makes a 160M SSB DX contesting a complete waste 
of time west of the Rockies, and the limited allocation in Region One 
seriously limits activity. SSB NAQP is sort of reasonable -- I have no 
idea how our east coast brethren behave, but west of the Rockies, 
there's activity for no more than about 90 minutes, it pretty much stays 
above 1840, and it's a 100W contest.


73, Jim K9YC
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[donovanf]

Hi Ed, 


Despite your experience, Europe can't call you on 1811 LSB either... 


Operators in those European countries with SSB priveleges 
below 1840 can only call you on a suppressed carrier frequency 
of about 1813 otherwise they're transmitting significant energy 
outside their 160 meter ham band. 


73 
Frank 
W3LPL 

- Original Message -

From: "Ed Sawyer" <sawye...@earthlink.net> 
To: topband@contesting.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 8:46:00 PM 
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step? 

It is common practice in the CQ WW 160M Contest for CQing on the NA and EU 
side to occur in the 1810 - 1825 range. I was doing so twice in the contest 
last weekend. It was pretty much every 3khz CQing in the range both Friday 
and Saturday nights including NA and EU CQing stations. For the last 5 or 6 
years, as far as I can remember, this has been the case. 



I had a number of EU stations call me Friday night between 23 and 00Z plus 
well over 100 NA callers. I was on 1811. 



I had dinner then came back and heard no one in the region of 1811 around 
0130Z. I started CQing. I was immediately told that an ET was below me on 
CW (in SSB). So I stopped, listened, heard the ET7L station listening up. 
Stopped and worked him on CW in about 3 calls for a new zone on 160 (ya!) 
and then went and CQ'd somewhere else. I swept by that pileup over an hour 
later and it was still clear of SSB - so whatever was being attempted was 
working. 



ZF2AM was down CQing around 1806 and there were 3 or 4 other CQing stations 
within 1810 - 1800. I never CQ down there because EU can't call you. 



There are really only 3 contests heavy with SSB on 160. ARRL DX SSB, CQ WW 
SSB, and CQ WW 160 SSB. WPX is zero, FD is essentially zero, and IARU is 
essentially zero. Maybe NAQP? Not sure, don't really do those. 



Is this really a problem? I don't think so. 



Ed N1UR 

_ 
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Roger Parsons via Topband]

A few more comments seem necessary:


I do of course agree strongly with Greg ZL3IX. The only reason I am arguing for 
a smaller CW segment is that there is very strong entrenched opposition from 
the contesting community to any change whatsoever, and I am trying to be more 
than reasonable.

Mike N2MS wrote:


"The only way this would work is if CQ limits the SSB contest to a certain 
segment of 160 meters."

That is exactly what I have been proposing.

Frank W3LPL wrote:

"Severe power restrictions above 1850 are very common as are restrictions on 
SSB operation below 1840."

That's why I am suggesting that the great majority of the 'prime' 1810-1850 kHz 
part of the band remain available for SSB contests.

Ed N1UR wrote:



"There are really only 3 contests heavy with SSB on 160.  ARRL DX SSB, CQ WW 
SSB, and CQ WW 160 SSB.  WPX is zero, FD is essentially zero, and IARU is 
essentially zero.  Maybe NAQP?  Not sure, don't really do those."


OK, so there is no reason at all from a contester's perspective why all the 
contests and QSO parties that have low 160m usage should not have SSB 
restricted to 1820 and above, and I would appreciate your help in achieving 
this.

He also wrote:


"Is this really a problem? I don't think so."

Clearly it is not a problem for contesters, as they are currently unrestricted, 
but I assure you that it is a considerable problem for others. I am suggesting 
a minor change to the rules of applicable contests to allow a very small part 
of the band to be usable for CW and DX during SSB contests. Some contests 
already incorporate restrictions on allowable frequency use (I am aware of a 
number of RSGB contests and I am sure there are more).

160m is supposed to be the Gentleman's Band. In my book that means 
co-existence, co-operation and respect.

How about it contesters?

73 Roger
VE3ZI
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Ed Sawyer]

It is common practice in the CQ WW 160M Contest for CQing on the NA and EU
side to occur in the 1810 - 1825 range.  I was doing so twice in the contest
last weekend.  It was pretty much every 3khz CQing in the range both Friday
and Saturday nights including NA and EU CQing stations.  For the last 5 or 6
years, as far as I can remember, this has been the case.

 

I had a number of EU stations call me Friday night between 23 and 00Z plus
well over 100 NA callers.  I was on 1811.

 

I had dinner then came back and heard no one in the region of 1811 around
0130Z.  I started CQing.  I was immediately told that an ET was below me on
CW (in SSB). So I stopped, listened, heard the ET7L station listening up.
Stopped and worked him on CW in about 3 calls for a new zone on 160 (ya!)
and then went and CQ'd somewhere else.  I swept by that pileup over an hour
later and it was still clear of SSB - so whatever was being attempted was
working.

 

ZF2AM was down CQing around 1806 and there were 3 or 4 other CQing stations
within 1810 - 1800. I never CQ down there because EU can't call you.

 

There are really only 3 contests heavy with SSB on 160.  ARRL DX SSB, CQ WW
SSB, and CQ WW 160 SSB.  WPX is zero, FD is essentially zero, and IARU is
essentially zero.  Maybe NAQP?  Not sure, don't really do those.

 

Is this really a problem?  I don't think so.

 

Ed  N1UR

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[donovanf]

Hi Don, 


I was surprised to see some very active countries cannot operate 
above 1850 kHz at all; for example: 
9K CT F LZ SV TA TF ZS 




Severe power restrictions above 1850 are very common as are 
restrictions on SSB operation below 1840. 


73 
Frank 
W3LPL 







- Original Message -

From: mstang...@comcast.net 
To: "Don Beattie" <d...@g3bj.com> 
Cc: "Top Band Contesting" <topband@contesting.com>, "James Rodenkirch" 
<rodenkirch_...@msn.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 5:02:56 PM 
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step? 

Don, 

You efforts are appreciated. I can understand the hurdles involved. 

Mike N2MS 


- Original Message - 
From: Don Beattie <d...@g3bj.com> 
To: mstang...@comcast.net, 'James Rodenkirch' <rodenkirch_...@msn.com> 
Cc: 'Top Band Contesting' <topband@contesting.com> 
Sent: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 16:27:06 - (UTC) 
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step? 

Mike - I agree the objective, but the reality is a little harder! 

The 160 allocations across Europe, for example, vary widely. 1800-1810 is 
not generally part of the allocated spectrum. Various countries have various 
parts of the band with varying power privileges (you'll have seen 
http://www.iaru-r1.org/index.php/documents/Documents/HF/160m-allocations-in- 
IARU-R1-rev-7-Jan-2015.pdf/ I am sure ) 

IARU tried at WRC 2015 to get an agenda item for WRC 2019 on the global 
harmonisation of the 160m band. We failed - there was simply not enough 
support from national administrations, many of whom could not see the 
priority. So although IARU can continue to seek harmonisation, the reality 
is that this is not going to happen any time soon, sadly. 

73 

Don, G3BJ / G5W (Presidnet IARU Region 1) 


-Original Message- 
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of 
mstang...@comcast.net 
Sent: 01 March 2016 16:15 
To: James Rodenkirch <rodenkirch_...@msn.com> 
Cc: Top Band Contesting <topband@contesting.com> 
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step? 

That is the band plan for the US in ITU Region2.. The problem is different 
ITU regions and countries have different 160 meter assignments. 

I common worldwide allocation will mitigate lots of these issues. 

We should urge our IARU representatives to work towards a common 1.8 to 2 
Mhz 160 meter band at the next IARU conference. 

Mike N2MS 

- Original Message - 
From: James Rodenkirch <rodenkirch_...@msn.com> 
To: Top Band Contesting <topband@contesting.com> 
Sent: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 15:31:16 - (UTC) 
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step? 

>From what little I've read - I am a "newbie" to 160 meter operating,- I 
gather a band plan carries little "weight," in the bigger schemes of things? 

Below is the 160 band plan, courtesy of that august group, the ARRL: 

160 Meters (1.8-2.0 MHz) 
1.800 - 2.000 CW 
1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes 
1.810 CW QRP 
1.843-2.000 SSB, SSTV and other wideband modes 
1.910 SSB QRP 
1.995 - 2.000 Experimental 
1.999 - 2.000 Beacons 

.digital modes mean "what?" E.G., JT-9/65 found on 1.840 or so... 
..SSB from 1.860 and up observed hourly, each day. 



_ 
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 


- 
No virus found in this message. 
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2016.0.7442 / Virus Database: 4537/11724 - Release Date: 03/01/16 

_ 
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 

_ 
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[mstangelo]

James,

Let's assume region 1 and 3 allow high power SSB operation above 1.850 Mhz and 
CQ "recommends" that operators say above 1.850 Mhz and away from the 1.910 QRP 
or 1.995-2.000 experimental segments. Will contesters follow that 
recommendation? Probably not.

I base my conclusion on experiences with other bands. Contest operators usually 
work over existing QSO's and nets. Fortunately we have the WARC bands on HF 
where contests are not allowed.

The only way this would work is if CQ limits the SSB contest to a certain 
segment of 160 meters.

Mike N2MS
- Original Message -
From: James Rodenkirch <rodenkirch_...@msn.com>
To: mstang...@comcast.net
Cc: Top Band Contesting <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 17:18:55 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

Appreciate the reminder re Region 2, Mike.but..will a "common plan" 
amongst all IARU regions, if not adhered to by participants (evidenced here in 
Region 2), be "worth the effort" to bring about???

Again, I am a newbie to 160 AND a QRP operator so DXCC entities, to me, mean 
anything west of the U.S., stopping just past HL/JA/VK lands.

P.S. I'm "new" sobe gentle in your replies!!


From: mstang...@comcast.net <mstang...@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 9:15 AM
To: James Rodenkirch
Cc: Top Band Contesting
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

That is the band plan for the US in ITU Region2.. The problem is different ITU 
regions and countries have different 160 meter assignments.

I common worldwide allocation will mitigate lots of these issues.

We should urge our IARU representatives to work towards a common 1.8 to 2 Mhz 
160 meter band at the next IARU conference.

Mike N2MS

- Original Message -
From: James Rodenkirch <rodenkirch_...@msn.com>
To: Top Band Contesting <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 15:31:16 - (UTC)
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

>From what little I've read - I am a "newbie" to 160 meter operating,- I gather 
>a band plan carries little "weight," in the bigger schemes of things?

Below is the 160 band plan, courtesy of that august group, the ARRL:

160 Meters (1.8-2.0 MHz)
1.800 - 2.000 CW
1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes
1.810 CW QRP
1.843-2.000 SSB, SSTV and other wideband modes
1.910 SSB QRP
1.995 - 2.000 Experimental
1.999 - 2.000 Beacons

.digital modes mean "what?" E.G., JT-9/65 found on 1.840 or so...
..SSB from 1.860 and up observed hourly, each day.



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Ashton Lee]

I’m impressed that you could hear the US SSB stations. I have never heard NZ on 
160.


> On Mar 1, 2016, at 9:30 AM, Greg - ZL3IX  wrote:
> 
> So far I have remained silent on this topic, although I do have a very strong 
> view, as follows.
> 
> I can understand the need for SSB operators to 'leak' downwards into the CW 
> exclusive part of the band during a contest.   I would even say take over two 
> thirds of the CW only segment and come down as far as 1823.  But please 
> leaves us the bottom 10 kHz to use.  Anything else is just plain 
> disrespectful and rude.
> 
> Over the weekend, I was trying to keep my nightly CW sked with G stations.  
> We decided to try 1811, but after a couple of minutes it was taken over by 
> some US SSB contester, and we had to give up.  I stayed QRT for the rest of 
> the weekend.
> 
> 73, Greg, ZL3IX
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[James Rodenkirch]

Appreciate the reminder re Region 2, Mike.but..will a "common plan" 
amongst all IARU regions, if not adhered to by participants (evidenced here in 
Region 2), be "worth the effort" to bring about???

Again, I am a newbie to 160 AND a QRP operator so DXCC entities, to me, mean 
anything west of the U.S., stopping just past HL/JA/VK lands.

P.S. I'm "new" sobe gentle in your replies!!


From: mstang...@comcast.net <mstang...@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 9:15 AM
To: James Rodenkirch
Cc: Top Band Contesting
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

That is the band plan for the US in ITU Region2.. The problem is different ITU 
regions and countries have different 160 meter assignments.

I common worldwide allocation will mitigate lots of these issues.

We should urge our IARU representatives to work towards a common 1.8 to 2 Mhz 
160 meter band at the next IARU conference.

Mike N2MS

- Original Message -
From: James Rodenkirch <rodenkirch_...@msn.com>
To: Top Band Contesting <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 15:31:16 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

>From what little I've read - I am a "newbie" to 160 meter operating,- I gather 
>a band plan carries little "weight," in the bigger schemes of things?

Below is the 160 band plan, courtesy of that august group, the ARRL:

160 Meters (1.8-2.0 MHz)
1.800 - 2.000 CW
1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes
1.810 CW QRP
1.843-2.000 SSB, SSTV and other wideband modes
1.910 SSB QRP
1.995 - 2.000 Experimental
1.999 - 2.000 Beacons

.digital modes mean "what?" E.G., JT-9/65 found on 1.840 or so...
..SSB from 1.860 and up observed hourly, each day.



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[mstangelo]

Don,

You efforts are appreciated. I can understand the hurdles involved.

Mike N2MS


- Original Message -
From: Don Beattie <d...@g3bj.com>
To: mstang...@comcast.net, 'James Rodenkirch' <rodenkirch_...@msn.com>
Cc: 'Top Band Contesting' <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 16:27:06 - (UTC)
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

Mike - I agree the objective, but the reality is a little harder!

The 160 allocations across Europe, for example, vary widely. 1800-1810 is
not generally part of the allocated spectrum. Various countries have various
parts of the band with varying power privileges (you'll have seen
http://www.iaru-r1.org/index.php/documents/Documents/HF/160m-allocations-in-
IARU-R1-rev-7-Jan-2015.pdf/ I am sure )

IARU tried at WRC 2015 to get an agenda item for WRC 2019 on the global
harmonisation of the 160m band. We failed - there was simply not enough
support from national administrations, many of whom could not see the
priority. So although IARU can continue to seek harmonisation, the reality
is that this is not going to happen any time soon, sadly. 

73

Don, G3BJ / G5W (Presidnet IARU Region 1)


-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
mstang...@comcast.net
Sent: 01 March 2016 16:15
To: James Rodenkirch <rodenkirch_...@msn.com>
Cc: Top Band Contesting <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

That is the band plan for the US in ITU Region2.. The problem is different
ITU regions and countries have different 160 meter assignments.

I common worldwide allocation will mitigate lots of these issues.

We should urge our IARU representatives to work towards a common 1.8 to 2
Mhz 160 meter band at the next IARU conference.

Mike N2MS

- Original Message -
From: James Rodenkirch <rodenkirch_...@msn.com>
To: Top Band Contesting <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 15:31:16 - (UTC)
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

>From what little I've read - I am a "newbie" to 160 meter operating,- I
gather a band plan carries little "weight," in the bigger schemes of things?

Below is the 160 band plan, courtesy of that august group, the ARRL:

160 Meters (1.8-2.0 MHz)
1.800 - 2.000 CW
1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes
1.810 CW QRP
1.843-2.000 SSB, SSTV and other wideband modes
1.910 SSB QRP
1.995 - 2.000 Experimental
1.999 - 2.000 Beacons

.digital modes mean "what?" E.G., JT-9/65 found on 1.840 or so...
..SSB from 1.860 and up observed hourly, each day.



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7442 / Virus Database: 4537/11724 - Release Date: 03/01/16

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Greg - ZL3IX]

So far I have remained silent on this topic, although I do have a very 
strong view, as follows.


I can understand the need for SSB operators to 'leak' downwards into the 
CW exclusive part of the band during a contest.   I would even say take 
over two thirds of the CW only segment and come down as far as 1823.  
But please leaves us the bottom 10 kHz to use.  Anything else is just 
plain disrespectful and rude.


Over the weekend, I was trying to keep my nightly CW sked with G 
stations.  We decided to try 1811, but after a couple of minutes it was 
taken over by some US SSB contester, and we had to give up.  I stayed 
QRT for the rest of the weekend.


73, Greg, ZL3IX
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Don Beattie]

Mike - I agree the objective, but the reality is a little harder!

The 160 allocations across Europe, for example, vary widely. 1800-1810 is
not generally part of the allocated spectrum. Various countries have various
parts of the band with varying power privileges (you'll have seen
http://www.iaru-r1.org/index.php/documents/Documents/HF/160m-allocations-in-
IARU-R1-rev-7-Jan-2015.pdf/ I am sure )

IARU tried at WRC 2015 to get an agenda item for WRC 2019 on the global
harmonisation of the 160m band. We failed - there was simply not enough
support from national administrations, many of whom could not see the
priority. So although IARU can continue to seek harmonisation, the reality
is that this is not going to happen any time soon, sadly. 

73

Don, G3BJ / G5W (Presidnet IARU Region 1)


-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
mstang...@comcast.net
Sent: 01 March 2016 16:15
To: James Rodenkirch <rodenkirch_...@msn.com>
Cc: Top Band Contesting <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

That is the band plan for the US in ITU Region2.. The problem is different
ITU regions and countries have different 160 meter assignments.

I common worldwide allocation will mitigate lots of these issues.

We should urge our IARU representatives to work towards a common 1.8 to 2
Mhz 160 meter band at the next IARU conference.

Mike N2MS

- Original Message -
From: James Rodenkirch <rodenkirch_...@msn.com>
To: Top Band Contesting <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 15:31:16 - (UTC)
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

>From what little I've read - I am a "newbie" to 160 meter operating,- I
gather a band plan carries little "weight," in the bigger schemes of things?

Below is the 160 band plan, courtesy of that august group, the ARRL:

160 Meters (1.8-2.0 MHz)
1.800 - 2.000 CW
1.800 - 1.810 Digital Modes
1.810 CW QRP
1.843-2.000 SSB, SSTV and other wideband modes
1.910 SSB QRP
1.995 - 2.000 Experimental
1.999 - 2.000 Beacons

.digital modes mean "what?" E.G., JT-9/65 found on 1.840 or so...
..SSB from 1.860 and up observed hourly, each day.



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7442 / Virus Database: 4537/11724 - Release Date: 03/01/16

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Roger Parsons via Topband]

Tom

Perhaps you are correct in suggesting that only one SSB contest in the whole 
year impacts significantly on 160m CW activity. Therefore, for all contests and 
QSO parties other than CQ 160 SSB, the competitors will not be affected at all 
if the organisers prohibit SSB operation below 1820 kHz. Thank you for 
clarifying the situation, and I look forward to your support in getting that 
entered into the rules of each of these events.
So now the issue is that I am asking that 7 kHz (or perhaps something less) out 
of 40 kHz 'prime' international frequencies be reserved for CW operation during 
one contest. Doesn't strike me as anything that should be terribly difficult 
for you and other contesters to accept in the interests of co-existence and 
co-operation on the Gentleman's Band.
73 RogerVE3ZI

PS Top Band Expeditions: The majority of expeditions operate only CW on 160m 
and many have coincided with major CW contests. They only need to make a couple 
of contacts before they have a stream of callers who will keep any CQ machines 
at bay. Expeditions made specifically for some particular contest, whether CW 
or SSB, have little problem on either mode.


  From: Tom Haavisto <kamha...@gmail.com>
 To: Roger Parsons <ve...@yahoo.com> 
Cc: TopBand List <topband@contesting.com>; Contest <cq-cont...@contesting.com>
 Sent: Monday, 29 February 2016, 13:54
 Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?
   
Hi Roger
Thanks for making me take a second look.  For some reason, I thought ARRL had a 
160 phone contest - they do not.  My mistake.As it turns out - there is only 
ONE SSB contest - the CQ 160 SSB that can fill 160 meters with SSB signals.  
ONE weekend per year in which CW activity will be seriously impacted by a phone 
contest on 160.

There are the CQ 160 and ARRL 160 CW contests.  Not sure how you protect a 
DXpedition from contest activity if they were operating CW during a CW contest. 
 Would the DXpedition operate phone that weekend?  Not sure how well that would 
work, as they would be pushed pretty high up the band...
ALL the other contests listed have 160 meters as one band of six to conduct 
contest QSO's.  Folks will make a 'quick trip' to 160, look for a few QSO's, 
then return to higher bands.  
Even if folks operate phone in the contests you have listed, I really cannot 
see someone camping out below 1840 for an extended period of time looking for 
Q's.  Good manners and common sense seem to play a huge part in this.  Am I 
missing something?
How do we move a world-wide contest, based a DXpedition taking to the air at 
the last minute, and saying "Gee - wonder if we should operate on 160?"  I 
realize this may seem like an odd question, but this seems what you would like 
to see happen.  The weekend is advertised - years in advance - for any 
DXpedition to find.  Other/most DXpeditions seem to take contest activity in 
account as part of their planning.  Phone operation already takes place higher 
in the band during every contest, other than the one that just happened.  
Topband is safe from SSB signals below 1840 for another 51 weeks.
Just trying to understand the issue...
Tom - VE3CX




On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Roger Parsons <ve...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thank you for your comments Tom.


The NA band plan has phone at above 1840kHz. My proposal is for phone above 
1817kHz (and perhaps below 1810kHz) which seems to me to accept that this is 
not normal band loading.

Please see my previous post regarding antenna bandwidth.

I don't know where you get your 'two weekends a year'. I did a quick skim and 
found the following significant phone contests which include 160m:

CQ160, ARRL DX, Russian DX, WPX, ARRL FD, IARU, CQWW.


Obviously the effects will vary between contests and between different areas of 
the world. There are also many QSO parties and a great number of smaller 
contests.

CW contests do not preclude phone operation on top band - they just move it 
further up the band. SSB contests at present leave no space whatsoever for any 
other modes.


Your wonderings leave me bemused. Your question can just as easily be reversed: 
"Why would somebody plan a 160m phone contest when there is a DXpedition 
planned?" and make just as much sense. I believe that one of the current 
DXpeditions is actually a spare time operation of people who are working in the 
country for a short period. Difficult to change that timing. And why on earth 
should they be prevented from operating on 160m if that is their pleasure, any 
more than you should be prevented from operating in a 160m phone contest when 
that is your pleasure.

But the most important fact is that it is entirely possible for CW and phone to 
coexist during a 160m phone contest. Leave a very small bandwidth (enough for 3 
SSB stations) where phone contest operators are not permitted. Write it into 
the contest rules so that regulations and bandplans become i

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Henk PA5KT]

Dont forget in R1 there are still countries which have only 1810-1850.

As long as we dont get the full band it will be a discussion point every 
time.


I do listen a lot on 160m. I know only of 2 contests where the CW band 
is not usable: CQ160 and CQWW. Other contests keep the SSB higher in the 
band.


I made 25 qso's last weekend and stayed away from 160m. Lot of other 
nice things to do.


73 Henk PA5KT

Op 2/29/2016 om 17:01 schreef Roger Parsons via Topband:

Thank you for your comments Tom.


The NA band plan has phone at above 1840kHz. My proposal is for phone above 
1817kHz (and perhaps below 1810kHz) which seems to me to accept that this is 
not normal band loading.




_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Roger Parsons via Topband]

Thank you for your comments Tom.


The NA band plan has phone at above 1840kHz. My proposal is for phone above 
1817kHz (and perhaps below 1810kHz) which seems to me to accept that this is 
not normal band loading.

Please see my previous post regarding antenna bandwidth.

I don't know where you get your 'two weekends a year'. I did a quick skim and 
found the following significant phone contests which include 160m:

CQ160, ARRL DX, Russian DX, WPX, ARRL FD, IARU, CQWW.


Obviously the effects will vary between contests and between different areas of 
the world. There are also many QSO parties and a great number of smaller 
contests.

CW contests do not preclude phone operation on top band - they just move it 
further up the band. SSB contests at present leave no space whatsoever for any 
other modes.


Your wonderings leave me bemused. Your question can just as easily be reversed: 
"Why would somebody plan a 160m phone contest when there is a DXpedition 
planned?" and make just as much sense. I believe that one of the current 
DXpeditions is actually a spare time operation of people who are working in the 
country for a short period. Difficult to change that timing. And why on earth 
should they be prevented from operating on 160m if that is their pleasure, any 
more than you should be prevented from operating in a 160m phone contest when 
that is your pleasure.

But the most important fact is that it is entirely possible for CW and phone to 
coexist during a 160m phone contest. Leave a very small bandwidth (enough for 3 
SSB stations) where phone contest operators are not permitted. Write it into 
the contest rules so that regulations and bandplans become irrelevant. 


Again I ask. Why not?

73 Roger
VE3ZI


From: Tom Haavisto <kamha...@gmail.com>
To: Roger Parsons <ve...@yahoo.com> 
Cc: TopBand List <topband@contesting.com>; Contest <cq-cont...@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2016, 19:19
Subject: Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?



I think there is a few things that need to also be taken into account.

A bandplan is designed for *normal* band loading.  Clearly, when there is a 
contest on, we are NOT dealing with normal band loading.

As has been noted, antenna bandwidth is part of the issue.


Phone contests will take up two weekends out of the year on Topband.


What happens when there is a CW contest?  We move up the band to accomodate the 
extra activity...  With a phone contest, with folks using <1Khz spacing, every 
little of extra space helps.  So yes - folks DO move down into the CW part of 
the band.

But - I cannot help but wonder - why would someone plan a DXpedition (much 
planning involved), and NOT take a 160 phone contest into consideration?  I 
have seen some DXpeditions go to the WARC bands if there is a major contest on 
when they are on.  Or - they operate the other mode (operate CW when there is a 
phone contest on, and vice versa).  Could a DXpedition not stay off 160 for the 
weekend they are there (assuming they are not there FOR the contest), and focus 
on 80 meters instead?  Not EVERY serious DXer is on 160, and I am sure more 
than a few of them would appreciate the extra attention (a weekends worth) to 
their favorite band/mode/whatever as the DXpedition does not operate on Topband.


Just "seems odd" to me.

Tom - VE3CX











This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. 
www.avast.com 


On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Roger Parsons via Topband 
<topband@contesting.com> wrote:

I enjoy contests but...
>
>
>This weekend has seen the CQ 160m SSB Contest. It has also seen CW activity or 
>attempted activity from a number of extremely rare DX entities.
>
>Why is it reasonable or even acceptable for the band to be full of SSB 
>contesters from 1800kHz to about 1960kHz? The vast majority of contacts made 
>in the contest are same continent, and in the case of NA could and should all 
>comply with the band plan. Why is the CW part of the band full of SSB whereas 
>the top (phone) end of the band is almost empty?
>
>
>I have previously suggested to the contest administrators at both CQ and ARRL 
>that they set in the contest rules a lower operational limit of 1820kHz dial 
>frequency. That would give contesters 23kHz of the 'prime' international 
>frequencies between 1810kHz and 1840kHz, and a total 183kHz for many 
>countries. The CW DX operators would have 7kHz internationally. Neither CQ nor 
>ARRL have treated this suggestion seriously, nor come up with any alternative.
>
>Why not?
>
>73 Roger
>VE3ZI
>_
>Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Rob Atkinson]

>Neither CQ nor ARRL have
>treated this suggestion seriously, nor come up with any alternative.

>Why not?


Change your complaint to ARRL so it says SSB QRM to digital QSOs and
they'll petition the FCC to give you a subband.


Rob
K5UJ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[JC]

> I'd like to think the CW-only ops can be cooperative too.

>>CW ops have ALWAYS had to bend over backwards during SSB contests. The
problem this year, as articulated in VE3ZI's post, is that there are/were
several DXpeditions out this weekend with operations on 160M that should
have been protected from QRM.
<<


I would like to say there gentlemen's on the band, ZF2AM, Thanks John !!! He
moved 2 KHz down from 1811.5 where ET7L was calling CQ listening up1, that
created a window clear enough for several USA and Europeans  stations to
work ET7L


ET7L was running 120W and a beverage towards US. The signal was amazing and
peaked 569  before their SR

So, there are plenty of gentlemen's on the band and the bad days with bad
propagation is over, we should have good propagation condition on 160m for
years to come.

73's
JC
N4IS


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Roger Parsons via Topband]

I have received replies both on the reflector and privately.


Several suggest that the problem is that "160m antennas are narrow band". With 
respect, that is an excuse not a reason. It is perfectly possible to match 
(almost) any antenna at (almost) any frequency. People seem to manage it on 
80m. And gracious, I am only asking that 7kHz out of 200kHz be set aside!


Others suggest that the problem is FCC regulations, or the lack of them. 
Ignoring the fact that the FCC regulates only one country out of the whole 
world, this is nothing to do with regulations except those that may be imposed 
by the rules of a particular contest. It is entirely to do with being 
reasonable and responsive to others.

I believe my proposal (or some variation of it) should be considered and 
adopted by the contest sponsors.

Again I ask. Why not?

73 Roger
VE3ZI
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Jim Brown]

On Sun,2/28/2016 7:53 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote:

I'd like to think the CW-only ops can be cooperative too.


CW ops have ALWAYS had to bend over backwards during SSB contests. The 
problem this year, as articulated in VE3ZI's post, is that there 
are/were several DXpeditions out this weekend with operations on 160M 
that should have been protected from QRM.


73, Jim K9YC
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Mike Smith VE9AA]

Roger, 

 

Pretty straightforward.

 

Narrow Bandwidth antennas + wideband modes (like SSB) = crowding in the
1800-1850 region. (and no (or very little) room for CW ops.)

 

I was not on this weekend *(don't particularly enjoy SSB on TopBand) but had
I been on, I would have spent 99% of my time below 1850MHz somewhere due to
the antenna.

 

73

 

Mike VE9AA

 

Mike, Coreen & Corey

Keswick Ridge, NB

 

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Kevin Stover]

Because the FCC says you can run any mode anywhere in the band just like 
you can run CW anywhere on any HF band.

That's not to say some folks may be less than happy, but it's legal.
The "DX Window" has no force of law and neither does the rest of the 
"band plan".


 2/28/2016 9:22 AM, Roger Parsons via Topband wrote:

I enjoy contests but...


This weekend has seen the CQ 160m SSB Contest. It has also seen CW activity or 
attempted activity from a number of extremely rare DX entities.

Why is it reasonable or even acceptable for the band to be full of SSB 
contesters from 1800kHz to about 1960kHz? The vast majority of contacts made in 
the contest are same continent, and in the case of NA could and should all 
comply with the band plan. Why is the CW part of the band full of SSB whereas 
the top (phone) end of the band is almost empty?


I have previously suggested to the contest administrators at both CQ and ARRL 
that they set in the contest rules a lower operational limit of 1820kHz dial 
frequency. That would give contesters 23kHz of the 'prime' international 
frequencies between 1810kHz and 1840kHz, and a total 183kHz for many countries. 
The CW DX operators would have 7kHz internationally. Neither CQ nor ARRL have 
treated this suggestion seriously, nor come up with any alternative.

Why not?

73 Roger
VE3ZI
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband




--
R. Kevin Stover
AC0H
ARRL
FISTS #11993
SKCC #215
NAQCC #3441


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Bill Cromwell]

Hi Roger,

I don't post here very much. I'm a casual op on 160 (no antenna at 
present). The problem I experience isn't a lack of "band plans" - aka 
gentlemen's agreements. The problem for me is there are too many of 
them. I can find several and they are in conflict each with every other. 
Since I do not care a whit about wallpaper or DXCC (sacrilege, I know) 
and only have a casual interest in *some* contests. My solution is to 
QSY when I encounter pileups on the band. That may mean QSY with the 
bandswitch. If the gentlemen can actually reach a uniform agreement I 
will be happy enough to observe it. Meanwhile I just stay out of the 
way. Whenever I have an antenna I do enjoy some casual operating and 
even some events like Stew Perry. Most of the time when I want to 
operate I can find a place to do so and still avoid frequencies in use. 
For me it's a hobby and I can use some other band or walk the dog or 
play my musical instruments or even visit with the XYL when there are 
rabid contests going on.


I may have a patch job on my 'big' antenna by this evening. Waiting for 
the frost to leave for new antenna work.


73,

Bill  KU8H



On 02/28/2016 10:22 AM, Roger Parsons via Topband wrote:

I enjoy contests but...


This weekend has seen the CQ 160m SSB Contest. It has also seen CW activity or 
attempted activity from a number of extremely rare DX entities.

Why is it reasonable or even acceptable for the band to be full of SSB 
contesters from 1800kHz to about 1960kHz? The vast majority of contacts made in 
the contest are same continent, and in the case of NA could and should all 
comply with the band plan. Why is the CW part of the band full of SSB whereas 
the top (phone) end of the band is almost empty?


I have previously suggested to the contest administrators at both CQ and ARRL 
that they set in the contest rules a lower operational limit of 1820kHz dial 
frequency. That would give contesters 23kHz of the 'prime' international 
frequencies between 1810kHz and 1840kHz, and a total 183kHz for many countries. 
The CW DX operators would have 7kHz internationally. Neither CQ nor ARRL have 
treated this suggestion seriously, nor come up with any alternative.

Why not?

73 Roger
VE3ZI
_



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Tim Shoppa]

Roger - many "locals" have told me their 160M antenna system only tunes the
CW section and they cannot even go above 1840 their antenna is so narrow
banded.

Even though I only spend a few hours on 160M phone each year, I have added
some relays to remotely short out turns of L matching network at the base,
to let me QSY easily. Few "ordinary" folks will go to such effort.

I don't have a big problem with phone contest taking the whole bandwidth on
the phone contest weekends and CW taking the whole bandwidth on the CW
contest weekends.

I did find SSB stuff all the way up to 1997kc. I thought about running
right at/below 2000kc.

I note in ARRL 160M late last year and CQ 160M CW early this year, the
phone net guys who used to camp out on "their frequency (which can be as
low as 1850)" and chase CW guys away, they seemed to be more cooperative
this year. As a result there was a lot less crowding and it was a lot
easier to work DX in the 160M CW events.. I'd like to think the CW-only ops
can be cooperative too.

Tim N3QE

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Roger Parsons via Topband <
topband@contesting.com> wrote:

> I enjoy contests but...
>
>
> This weekend has seen the CQ 160m SSB Contest. It has also seen CW
> activity or attempted activity from a number of extremely rare DX entities.
>
> Why is it reasonable or even acceptable for the band to be full of SSB
> contesters from 1800kHz to about 1960kHz? The vast majority of contacts
> made in the contest are same continent, and in the case of NA could and
> should all comply with the band plan. Why is the CW part of the band full
> of SSB whereas the top (phone) end of the band is almost empty?
>
>
> I have previously suggested to the contest administrators at both CQ and
> ARRL that they set in the contest rules a lower operational limit of
> 1820kHz dial frequency. That would give contesters 23kHz of the 'prime'
> international frequencies between 1810kHz and 1840kHz, and a total 183kHz
> for many countries. The CW DX operators would have 7kHz internationally.
> Neither CQ nor ARRL have treated this suggestion seriously, nor come up
> with any alternative.
>
> Why not?
>
> 73 Roger
> VE3ZI
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: Am I the only one in step?

[Roger Parsons via Topband]

I enjoy contests but...


This weekend has seen the CQ 160m SSB Contest. It has also seen CW activity or 
attempted activity from a number of extremely rare DX entities.

Why is it reasonable or even acceptable for the band to be full of SSB 
contesters from 1800kHz to about 1960kHz? The vast majority of contacts made in 
the contest are same continent, and in the case of NA could and should all 
comply with the band plan. Why is the CW part of the band full of SSB whereas 
the top (phone) end of the band is almost empty?


I have previously suggested to the contest administrators at both CQ and ARRL 
that they set in the contest rules a lower operational limit of 1820kHz dial 
frequency. That would give contesters 23kHz of the 'prime' international 
frequencies between 1810kHz and 1840kHz, and a total 183kHz for many countries. 
The CW DX operators would have 7kHz internationally. Neither CQ nor ARRL have 
treated this suggestion seriously, nor come up with any alternative.

Why not?

73 Roger
VE3ZI
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband