Contesters

I know I know, this has been talked about here almost as much as code/no-code... But it still is annoying when they plant themselves 1 KC away from an on going QSO and open up with both barrels and a full gallon... If the contesting community can't clean up their act then I see no reason to have any respect for any of them... I admit, I no longer feel bad about cranking up the power to the legal limit when they pull this crap.... Widening the bandwidth is helpfull also... Informing them that there is a QSO in progress is useless,,, they just tell you where to stick it.... What a bunch of arses......

[K9STH]

Unfortunately, when contests are in full swing, someone running relatively low power is not going to be heard in all of the QRM, broadband noise, etc. by most stations in many cases. There are a very few operators on both sides (contesters and non-contesters) that have no respect for others. But, by and large, if you insist on operating towards the lower end of the bands, then you are not going to be able to have a "normal" type of ragchew during a contest. If you operate towards the high end of the band, then usually you won't have any problems.

The fact that you can hear the contesting station is not a certain thing that he/she can hear you. Also, especially where DX is concerned, you might not hear the DX station at all yet many stations will be calling the DX that you can definitely hear.

During contests, if you really want to ragchew, then start at the high end of the band and work your way downwards in frequency. Virtually all the time during any contest you will be able to find an "open" frequency. If you have "certain" frequencies that you "always" use, if they are towards the lower portion of the bands then, frankly, you will not be able to use them because of the sheer number of stations operating in the contest. But, by going to the high end where there is usually very little, if any, contest activity then you shouldn't have any real problems with contesters.

Glen, K9STH

[w3sy]

Trying to ragchew during a MAJOR contest is like trying to go 10 mph under the speed limit in the fast (leftmost) lane on the Interstate in moderately heavy traffic. Both are legal, but ulimately you won't have a lot of fun trying to do it.

For the sake of your safety and sanity, IF you insist on driving under the speed limit, do it in the rightmost lane. Also, for the sake of your sanity, rediscover the WARC bands when heavy duty contesting is going on, and you don't want to participate.

Why frustrate yourself? Even if every contester is completely considerate, it's going to get VERY crowded. Go to Plan B, by all means. Contesting won't go away because you wish it away. Have an alternate plan that will cause you less stress.

Thanks and good luck.

QRZed?

[KM5FL]

Glen:
I agree with you more than 99.44% of the time on most subjects.. I have high regard and respect for your knowledge and opinions, but I gotta disagree with you on this one..

I'm directly addressing NJ1K's second sentence.. If a contester moves in on my ongoing QSO, I ain't going nowhere.. It's gonna be my "gallon" against his.. HE can "start at the high end of the band and work downward"..

Lemme tell you a story about an encounter me and some friends had with a contester a few years ago.. It was late at night and we had been ragchewing maybe a couple hours when this contester working split jumps right on top of us.. He was "Beaming Europe and listening on XXXX", as he put it.. He kept at it for several minutes, so we looked him up and got his email address. 3 - 4 of us dashed off a message explaining what he was doing.. His reply, thru e-mails was that his contest held precidence over our ragchewing and told us we had to - and I quote him here - Yield to any and all contesters...

Now if I decide to get on the air after a contest starts, I'll be the one looking for a "hole", although, I never use "contesters' techniques" looking for that hole..

Glen, I hope we're still friends http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

KM5FL

[G7HEU]

In the U.K. the 40Mtrs band is 7.000 to 7.1000. The band plan shows CW only from 7.000 to 7.0350. I think it's the same for the rest of Europe.

Why then is the CW segment full of European contest stations using SSB today?


Nobody needs to tell me that the band plan isn't law, but a gentlemans aggreement. A good example of contesters doing what they like when it suits them....

Steve
M0HEU / G7HEU.

[N2ACX]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Speaking of contests,and I am not nor ever have been interested in contesting,Iam interested in having a nice QSO with other hams and sharing information about thier location,equipment,vocation and other subjects of substance other than "Name Rank & Serial Number". Iam on 40 CW right now 0400 3-6-04, and another one is in full swing in the CW portion of the band but it's SSB from other parts of the world. What little is left of the CW portion in the USA is now SSB from Canada,who have set up more "Nets" there, and other countries who have been given SSB rights in this frequency window.
I agree with NJ1K, but have always wondered why so many contest throughout the year? Field Day,for emergency preparedness a couple times a year would be acceptable, and maybe a couple for jollies so those who want to see their calls publicized would be happy, and of course the rig manufactures can say this "champion of the airwaves" is using "Our Rig"
Maybe I'm expecting too much that when a weekend comes one would love to relax and get on the radio for a longer period than during the work week,but alas,another weekend down the tubes because of a contest.
I have also tried in the past to "squeeze in" a frequency, but there is usually someone who will always jump on top of you and call CQ(Excuse for contest name here) and allowing a certain percentage for those that may not hear you,most that do hear you, will just bury you with power.I, like many other hams, could have purchased several Alpha Linear Amplifiers for the cost of other "toys" but after using the Collins S' line and 4 element beams at 150' in the navy there was no challenge in communicating,great for running phone patches in the "Old days" tho.
I'm all for everyone having a time to excercise their form of enjoyment of this hobby, but the contests seem to come everytime we turn around, and were not even talking about "sqeezing in" between the "Nets" yet on any other weekday or weekend.
It's too bad the world hasn't gotten together for a uniform band plan so every country has near the same allocations for modes as the other,and to have a uniform power limit of say 400W worldwide, and level the playing field, this would also stimulate many others to join in the hobby and put their expertise into antenna design instead of who can buy the legal limit amplifiers. it is a "Free for All" of hams stepping all over each other and "survival of the one with the highest power" mentality and has been around for a long time, but now it seems that the "powers that be" have added more grief by allowing a complete "Mode mix" in most of the frequency band plans.
Anyone have any suggestions to improve the "quality" of ham radio worldwide? That is, providing that BPL doesn't make the bands inoperable in the first place.
N2ACX maybe I'm just an "ole faaat"

Sure I have an idea for making ham radio better for the world,,,,,,, OUTLAW CONTESTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kg4zar]

Being a lowly "no code tech", I have no experience with these "contesters" but from this thread they sound like the BASS fishing tourney hotshots that have overrun all our lakes. They fire up 250hp boats and run down the lake at 70mph messing up the water for everyone else and claim it's their right cause they are in a tournament.
Maybe so, but after a few jon boats were swamped or run over by these a-holes, the DNR boys got involved. Let's face it, common sense, courtesy, and safety apply "everywhere" and no one has the "right", just priveledges earned!
kg4zar
Larry

[K9STH]

FL:

I definitely did not say that every contester is considerate! There are those who do exactly the same thing to other contest stations as well as ragchewers. I have had someone try to take over a particular frequency on which I have been "running" stations for a considerable length of time. Most of the time I have enough signal that they move off in a very short time. Other times I just have to "grin and bear it" and I finally give up.

I have also been running stations for a considerable length of time and have had a ragchewer try to take over the frequency for some sort of schedule that he/she has held every weekend for years, or, sometimes, they just want to try to cause problems because they hate contests.

Wheter or not you hate contests, like contests, or have no opinion of contests, there comes a time that you really should use your 6th and 7th senses. You know the 5 senses, sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing. But, everyone was born with 2 additional senses: Common sense and "horse" sense! Unfortunately, these last two are often lost as the person increases in age! Frankly, why do some people try to ragchew right in the middle of the maximum contest activity? Yes, they can "legally" operate using whatever mode that their particular license allows. But, come on, common sense says to "go with the flow" and move away from the activity!

I have operated many contests over the years and have placed very high in a number of them. Today I often don't get that involved in contest activities. But, if I wish to operate on a particular band and mode and there is a major contest going on, then I take my activity to the portion of the band that the contest activity is not heavy. This is a "no brainer"! But, unfortunately, there is the "me first" attitude of too many amateur radio operators these days who refuse to "go with the flow" and insist on "squatting" on a particular frequency no matter what the general type of activity is. Although this attitude is present in a relatively few number of contesters, it seems to be prevalent more in the non-contest group.

As for the number of contests: There are a relatively few in number of major contests. However, the number of local contests, association contests (like when the 10-10 group has a contest on 10 meters, state QSO parties, etc.), has increased considerably in the past few years. As for the major contests there are the ARRL phone and CW Sweepstakes, the ARRL Field Day, the ARRL SSB and CW DX contests, the CQ World-Wide SSB and CW DX contests, and the CQ WPX SSB and CW contests. Then there are various foreign DX contests that have varying levels of participation.

With the exception of Field Day, none of the major contests have phone and CW at the same time. Thus, even if the SSB portions of the bands seem to be "filled", there is always CW. If the CW portions of the bands seem to be filled there is always SSB. Of course none of the major contests allow WARC band operation so there is always 30, 17, and 12 meters.

I have been licensed since 1959 and the same arguments about "too many contests" have been made since then. In fact, looking back in the various amateur radio magazines before that time I can see letters to the editor that say exactly the same things that are being said today! Frankly, nothing has changed except that the phone bands are larger and the CW only portions are smaller.

Contesters have exactly the same rights to the various frequencies as do ragchewers. The band conditions are constantly changing and what was a "clear" frequency suddenly has several stations operating in a very narrow segment of the band. Usually none of these stations knew that the other station was anywhere near until the band "shifted". Then, who has the "right" to the particular frequency? No one! If there is a contest going on and suddenly there is a conflict between a contest station and a non-contest station, and if the frequency is within the segment that is generally contest operation, then again it is a "no brainer", the contest station is going to continue operating. Or, even if that station ceases operation another contest station is going to come on the frequency since they most probably are not going to hear the ragchew.

Now, if this same thing happens in the portion of the band where contest activity is at a minimum, then I definitely believe that the contest station should move "down" the band to where the contest activity is greater and let the ragchewing stations alone.

As I said before, I have never found any band that was so full of contest activity that I could not conduct a ragchew at the higher end of the indivudual band. Maybe I wanted to be able to ragchew in the lower portions of the band, but the QRM level did not allow this. In fact, even during non-contest periods sometimes the QRM level is such that I might not be able to use the particular frequency that I may have wanted to use. Thus, I have to use my 6th and 7th senses and tune around and find a frequency on which to conduct whatever activity that I wish to engage in.

Glen, K9STH

[WC4J]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NJ1K @ Mar. 06 2004,06:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure I have an idea for making ham radio better for the world,,,,,,, OUTLAW CONTESTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I HAVE A BETTER ONE STOP YELLING AND FIGHTING OVER EVERY LITTLE THING
73
BRIAN

[KM5FL]

Glen:

Just to illustrate my feelings on this subject, I did a &quot;cut and paste&quot; of one of your paragraphs.. I left every word intact except &quot;contest&quot; and &quot;ragchew&quot;&quot;.. I switched 'em.. By simply substituting one word for another, you can get a good idea of my point of view.. The irony of it is, my viewpoint is exactly like yours.. We're just on opposite sides of the fence with one minor difference.. I'm quite a bit more hardheaded than you.. (comes with age, you know) I don't easily give up my &quot;turf&quot;..
........................................

Wheter or not you hate (ragchews), like (ragchews), or have no opinion of (ragchews), there comes a time that you really should use your 6th and 7th senses. You know the 5 senses, sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing. But, everyone was born with 2 additional senses: Common sense and &quot;horse&quot; sense! Unfortunately, these last two are often lost as the person increases in age! Frankly, why do some people try to (contest) right in the middle of the maximum (ragchew) activity? Yes, they can &quot;legally&quot; operate using whatever mode that their particular license allows. But, come on, common sense says to &quot;go with the flow&quot; and move away from the activity!
................................. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .....................

I hold an Extra Class license, and for the most part, so do the guys I regularly ragchew with on HF.. We &quot;congrugate&quot; on a frequency in the Extra/Advanced phone part of the band, so we are near the bottom of the band to begin with.. We traditionally meet at the same time every day.. If a contester is using the frequency, we just wait until he clears and moves on. If it's other ragchewers, we join them.. The considerate contesters never give us a problem... It's the inconsiderate ops that have put the bad taste in my mouth...

KM5FL

[KM5FL]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kg4zar @ Mar. 05 2004,09:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Being a lowly &quot;no code tech&quot;, I have no experience with these &quot;contesters&quot; but from this thread they sound like the BASS fishing tourney hotshots that have overrun all our lakes. They fire up 250hp boats and run down the lake at 70mph messing up the water for everyone else and claim it's their right cause they are in a tournament.
Maybe so, but after a few jon boats were swamped or run over by these a-holes, the DNR boys got involved. Let's face it, common sense, courtesy, and safety apply &quot;everywhere&quot; and no one has the &quot;right&quot;, just priveledges earned!
kg4zar
Larry[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Larry:
My hat's off to you.. You are wise beyond your (No-code Tech) years...

KM5FL

[KC8QMU]

ZAR you may not realize it but that was about the best comparison that I have ever heard!

Most contesters are allright, but there are enough arrogant ones to make the whole contest weekend situation look bad. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[K9STH]

FL:

Unfortunately, the Extra - Advanced portions of the SSB sub-bands are where most of the contest activity takes place! That is why I always tell those who are trying to ragchew during a contest to go to the high end of the bands. I really don't believe that there is a &quot;right&quot; or &quot;wrong&quot; to this suggestion. It is primarily a statement of how things really are!

It would be &quot;nice&quot; if everyone could do their &quot;own thing&quot; on any frequency that their license class allows operation. However, in a practical sense people tend to congregate in certain areas with certain activities. That tends to be in a contest situation that the operation is towards the lower end of the particular sub-band. At least by congregating in specific areas that there are other portions of the bands that are open for more general types of operation.

As for myself, if I am tuning around and come upon a ragchew I do my best to avoid causing any interference no matter if those stations are operating in the midst of primarily contest activity. But, if the band changes and I am &quot;running&quot; stations on a particular frequency then I will continue to operate on that frequency. The fact that the band changed and now several stations can hear each other who couldn't before is just &quot;one of the breaks of the game&quot;. No one is at fault. However, that is one of those &quot;common sense&quot; situations where someone who is not participating in the contest should not expect to be able to continue with non-contest activities in the very midst of a contest in terms of the frequency of operation.

Also, unfortunately, too many rigs these days do not have filters sufficient to remove (or at least significantly reduce) adjacent channel interference. Frankly, a filter that approaches 3 KHz in bandwidth (and a lot of the supposed 3 KHz filters don't have that great of &quot;skirts&quot; and have an effective bandwidth even greater) may be fine for operation when the band is not crowded, but they just &quot;don't cut the mustard&quot; when the band does get crowded. I hear complaints from stations with these wider filters about stations that are operating 3 to 5 KHz away that are still causing problems. On the other hand, those stations that are using narrower filters can reject stations that are considerably closer in frequency as well as their transmitted signals are narrower as well.

Remember, that in most rigs the same filter is used for both transmitting and receiving. Thus, the narrower the filter the less bandwidth that the transmitted signal takes up as well as allowing closer spacing between stations.

Frankly, many of the receivers that were used during the 1950s and 1960s had such broad response that it is very difficut today to use them except in relatively rare occasions. Of course there were receivers back then that had excellent bandwidths and are actually better in this respect than a number of the newer rigs. But, by and large, to use a receiver like a Hallicrafters S-85 (let alone a S-107 or, even worse, a S-38) is a lesson in frustration to someone who is used to using the newer equipment. Yet there are many amateurs around today who used such equipment and made thousands of contacts every year! We just didn't know how bad the equipment was so we used what we had and didn't worry about it!

Glen, K9STH

[wm7o]

I have no use for contesting. Absolutely none. It brings out the very worst in operating practices. The only exception that I make is for Field Day. Except for FD, contesting turns bands into very unpleasant places for the casual operator. I am in favor of banning all contesting except for Field Day.

73..Kent

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wm7o @ Mar. 06 2004,17:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have no use for contesting. #Absolutely none. #It brings out the very worst in operating practices. #The only exception that I make is for Field Day. #Except for FD, contesting turns bands into very unpleasant places for the casual operator. #I am in favor of banning all contesting except for Field Day.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I have no use for SSB ragchewing. #Absolutely none. #It brings out the very worst in operating practices. It serves no purposes listed in 47 CFR 97.1. SSB ragchewing turns bands into very unpleasant places for the casual operator. #I am in favor of banning all SSB ragchewing.

I have no use for CW ragchewing. #Absolutely none. #It brings out the very worst in operating practices. It serves no purposes listed in 47 CFR 97.1 and keeps technical people out of ham radio. CW ragchewing turns bands into very unpleasant places for the casual non-CW operator. #I am in favor of banning all CW ragchewing.

I have no use for DXing. #Absolutely none. #It brings out the very worst in operating practices. It serves no purposes listed in 47 CFR 97.1. DXing turns bands into very unpleasant places for the casual non-DXer. #I am in favor of banning all DXing.

I have no use for digital modes. #Absolutely none. #It brings out the very worst in operating practices. People with non-compatible modes cause QRM to prudent operators. The digital modes turns bands into very unpleasant places for the casual non-computer equiped operator. #I am in favor of banning all digital modes.

I have no use for 2m repeaters. Absolutely none. It brings out the very worst in operating practices. People form closed cliques and won't acknowledge new people. 2m repeaters make the 2m band into a very unpleasant place for the casual operator. I am in favor of banning 2m repeaters.

I have no use for HF nets. Absolutely none. It brings out the very worst in operating practices. HF nets claim a frequency simply because they've used it for years. And they usually have only a couple of people, don't handle any real energencies, and don't talk about things that interest me. HF nets turn bands into very unpleasant places for the casual operator. I am in favor of banning all HF nets.

I have no use for QRZ.COM. Absolutely none. It brings out the very worst in hams. QRZ.COM makes people think that all hams are jerks. QRZ.COM gives the impression that the ham bands are very unpleasant places for the casual operator. I am in favor of banning QRZ.COM.

73,

[VE1IDX]

I think before we start moaning about all the bad operators coming here from 11 meters we should start cleaning up the bad operators already here and YES I do mean the majority of contesters.I just got the data cables made up last night and set up the SSTV program this morning.I have never worked SSTV before and was all hyped up about making a few contacts this weekend especially after I saw the quality images from N4PDY and OX3WS last night.I tuned into 14.230 and copied a few SSTV stations through the QRM and then bang.&quot;CQ contest&quot; started on 14.229 and another big signal on 14.331 and another on 14.334.They were having a hard time copying the reports given to them because often they would ask for a repeat a couple times.Then they started bitching about the SSTV signals that were there before thay arrived.Needless to say I will have to put of my much anticipated entrance to SSTV for another day or two soley due to the extremely poor operating habits of the contesters.Why do we need so many contests anyway?Isn't once a year enough to prove whose is bigger? (point score that is )

[nz3m]

Excellent point, Walt

QUOTE:ke4nfk

I HAVE A BETTER ONE STOP YELLING AND FIGHTING OVER EVERY LITTLE THING

I'LL TELL YA WHAT ke4nfk,

I'LL STOP YELLING WHEN YOU &amp; ALL YOUR CONTESTER BUDDIES STOP YELLING ON THE BANDS......

[KC0OFZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Mar. 06 2004,15:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wm7o @ Mar. 06 2004,17:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have no use for contesting. #Absolutely none. #It brings out the very worst in operating practices. #The only exception that I make is for Field Day. #Except for FD, contesting turns bands into very unpleasant places for the casual operator. #I am in favor of banning all contesting except for Field Day.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I have no use for SSB ragchewing. #Absolutely none. #It brings out the very worst in operating practices. It serves no purposes listed in 47 CFR 97.1. SSB ragchewing turns bands into very unpleasant places for the casual operator. #I am in favor of banning all SSB ragchewing.

I have no use for CW ragchewing. #Absolutely none. #It brings out the very worst in operating practices. It serves no purposes listed in 47 CFR 97.1 and keeps technical people out of ham radio. CW ragchewing turns bands into very unpleasant places for the casual non-CW operator. #I am in favor of banning all CW ragchewing.

I have no use for DXing. #Absolutely none. #It brings out the very worst in operating practices. It serves no purposes listed in 47 CFR 97.1. DXing turns bands into very unpleasant places for the casual non-DXer. #I am in favor of banning all DXing.

I have no use for digital modes. #Absolutely none. #It brings out the very worst in operating practices. People with non-compatible modes cause QRM to prudent operators. The digital modes turns bands into very unpleasant places for the casual non-computer equiped operator. #I am in favor of banning all digital modes.

I have no use for 2m repeaters. #Absolutely none. #It brings out the very worst in operating practices. People form closed cliques and won't acknowledge new people. 2m repeaters make the 2m band into a very unpleasant place for the casual operator. #I am in favor of banning 2m repeaters.

I have no use for HF nets. #Absolutely none. #It brings out the very worst in operating practices. HF nets claim a frequency simply because they've used it for years. And they usually have only a couple of people, don't handle any real energencies, and don't talk about things that interest me. HF nets turn bands into very unpleasant places for the casual operator. #I am in favor of banning all HF nets.

I have no use for QRZ.COM. #Absolutely none. #It brings out the very worst in hams. QRZ.COM makes people think that all hams are jerks. QRZ.COM gives the impression that the ham bands are very unpleasant places for the casual operator. #I am in favor of banning QRZ.COM.

73,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Very well put Walt, I could not have said it better http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
73
KCØOFZ

[wm7o]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AB3BK @ Mar. 06 2004,15:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Excellent #point, Walt[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The big problem with contesting, which Walt fails to address, is that it's very nature encourages careless operating. A contest gives priority to making precious contacts. All of the other bands and modes that Walt sarcastically submits for banning have value as a mode of communication. The fact that there are poor operators in all ham bands and modes is irrelavent. None of those other bands or modes encourages the thoughtless and reckless collection of contacts at the expense of other users on the band. Contesting does just that. In fact, I submit that that is ALL that it does.

73..Kent

I think from here on out I should be the one who makes ALL regulations for ham radio... The first thing I would do is make contesting illegal and punishable by a $100,000 per hour of violation fine and 20 years in federal prison....

Any questions?? I thought not......

73 now............

[wm7o]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NJ1K @ Mar. 06 2004,16:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think from here on out I should be the one who makes ALL regulations for ham radio... The first thing I would do is make contesting illegal and punishable by a $100,000 per hour of violation fine and 20 years in federal prison....

Any questions?? #I thought not......

73 now............[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The heavy-handed fines and such will probably not be necessary. Contests don't happen without sponsors. I don't think it's too likely that sponsoring will continue to happen after the contests are made illegal.

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wm7o @ Mar. 06 2004,19:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The big problem with contesting, which Walt fails to address, is that it's very nature encourages careless operating. #A contest gives priority to making precious contacts. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So you think that causing QRM enhances one's score in a contest? Interesting viewpoint ...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All of the other bands and modes that Walt sarcastically submits for banning have value as a mode of communication. #The fact that there are poor operators in all ham bands and modes is irrelavent. #None of those other bands or modes encourages the thoughtless and reckless collection of contacts at the expense of other users on the band. #Contesting does just that. #In fact, I submit that that is ALL that it does.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well, since you apparently missed my point, I won't belabor it. However, when you absolutely need to get some minimum amount of information through under bad conditions, I'd bet a contester against a rag chewer any day.

I disagree. Contesting does not encourage bad operating and inconsiderate operators. Jerks are quite capable of being jerks with or without a contest, and they prove it every day, just not all at the same time.

People have been complaining about contests for at least the 34 years I've been paying attention. Same with complaints about CW, etc. Yet, even though the ARRL tells us that ham radio is dying, there are more contesters. And the same complaints continue.

But no need to worry. The new ARRL proposal, if accepted by the FCC will certainly solve the problem of poor contest operators. It will surely be the salvation of this dying ham radio service with so few operators being active.

73,

[wm7o]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Mar. 06 2004,16:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
So you think that causing QRM enhances one's score in a contest?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Evidently. I have no idea how one's score is affected by causing QRM. I know only that much QRM is caused by persons attempting to score contacts.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Well, since you apparently missed my point, I won't belabor it. However, when you absolutely need to get some minimum amount of information through under bad conditions, I'd bet a contester against a rag chewer any day.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think I missed your point. I just don't think it stands up. Contesting, by its very nature, creates a goal that is put ahead of courteous operation. And it's not just courtesy that falls by the wayside, but the FCC rules as well.

73..Kent

[W5HTW]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KM5FL @ Mar. 06 2004,13:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kg4zar @ Mar. 05 2004,09:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Being a lowly &quot;no code tech&quot;, I have no experience with these &quot;contesters&quot; but from this thread they sound like the BASS fishing tourney hotshots that have overrun all our lakes. They fire up 250hp boats and run down the lake at 70mph messing up the water for everyone else and claim it's their right cause they are in a tournament.
Maybe so, but after a few jon boats were swamped or run over by these a-holes, the DNR boys got involved. Let's face it, common sense, courtesy, and safety apply &quot;everywhere&quot; and no one has the &quot;right&quot;, just priveledges earned!
kg4zar
Larry[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Larry:
My hat's off to you.. You are wise beyond your (No-code Tech) years...

KM5FL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I compare them to the Little League parents who attack the officials and beat them seriously, for the singular goal is to win, and, in this case, be sure Junior wins, no matter what. To at least a large portion of the contesters, the goal is more paper on the wall, and how it is acquired is not relevant. But this, too, is a reflection of society, in which we are taught that winning is everything, being announced as top dog is critical, and those we step on as we achieve that &quot;goal&quot; are simply collateral damage.

To be honest, if contests were conducted with points for courtesy and good operating practice, and if people followed those rules, I would have nothing derogatory to say about them. As it is, I simply turn the radio off and find other things to do, or, in some cases, I move to the WARC bands. But the &quot;at any price&quot; approach gags me. Even if I liked contests I would hate to participate for I would hate to be grouped with the bad ones.

I realize, of course, that the bad ones are not the majority (or probably are not; I really can't tell.) They are, though, visible enough to make the entire activity seem unpleasant, too angry, too bitter, too combative, to actually be a part of any thing that could be called a hobby. More like assault by radio.

Ah, just an opinion. I agree, though, with the analogy to the bass fishermen. The ends justifies the means, and all the nastiness it takes to get there.

Ed

[ky5u]

My favorite part of contests on 40meters is listening to the foreign stations on split operation where they(for example) TX on 7.035 and RX on 7.235...then if you listen long enough, you'll hear some American amateur calling the station SSB on 7.035.

[nz3m]

Tune around the bands, there are tons of stations calling CQ contest. Most of these stations are not casual ops or ragchewers. Just imagine if they were. The bands would be like this ALL the time. Someone just trying to find a lttle spot to squeeze in.

I don't think it's all bad operators. There's just too many and they are all trying to find a spot to settle in.

So, I think it's just a &quot;crowded&quot; situation, instead of a bunch of arses. If there were this many hams on all the time, this is how it will be. And I think this is what the ARRL wants.

Thank god for Samuel Morse http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Dave

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wm7o @ Mar. 06 2004,21:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Mar. 06 2004,16:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you think that causing QRM enhances one's score in a contest?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>Evidently. #I have no idea how one's score is affected by causing QRM. #I know only that much QRM is caused by persons attempting to score contacts.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I know of no contests where more contacts are made by causing QRM than by not causing QRM.

Give us some data to work with. How many contesters caused you QRM? 1? 10? 100? 1000? How did those stations place in past contests? Post their calls so we can check in the contest results when they are issued.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, since you apparently missed my point, I won't belabor it. However, when you absolutely need to get some minimum amount of information through under bad conditions, I'd bet a contester against a rag chewer any day.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>I don't think I missed your point. #I just don't think it stands up. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Then you disagree that people will always find something to complain about and this weekend it happens to be contesting?

Would you like me to predict when the topic will come up again? (As an aside, it's interesting that there were no complaints the weekend of the CW contest.)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Contesting, by its very nature, creates a goal that is put ahead of courteous operation. #And it's not just courtesy that falls by the wayside, but the FCC rules as well.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Every contest that I know of specifies that operations must be conducted according to the law. If someone is breaking the FCC rules, then you should report them. And if the majority of contesters get reported, then your hypothesis would stand up.

On the other hand, since there are multiple contests every weekend, do you complain every weekend? Judging solely from comments, I suspect that the hard core contesters don't cause problems every weekend. Of course I have no data, since I have easily been able to peacefully coexist on the ham bands with contests and other activities for some 30 plus years.

Today I made a dozen or so contest contacts, then got bored with just working stateside stations and had a few extended rag chews with DX stations not contesting. And all on SSB. Later I went to CW and chatted some more. Life's rough ...

73,

[wm7o]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Mar. 06 2004,18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I know of no contests where more contacts are made by causing QRM than by not causing QRM.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't even know how to respond to this. #Does this have anything to do with what the meaning of the word &quot;is&quot; is?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Give us some data to work with. How many contesters caused you QRM? 1? 10? 100? 1000?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Are you actually suggesting that contesters don't cause QRM? #Are you really going to try to make a case that casual, non-contest QSO's are NOT at LEAST disrupted by contest operators? #I haven't counted, and I haven't logged the callsigns of offenders. #Perhaps someday I will.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
How did those stations place in past contests? Post their calls so we can check in the contest results when they are issued.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

How a station places in the contest is of little value. #Whether an offender is a seasoned contester or a green newbie does not matter. #It's the contest that is motivating their operation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Then you disagree that people will always find something to complain about and this weekend it happens to be contesting?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't start this thread, but I am more or less in agreement with the person that did. #And my comments here go well beyond complaint. #I really believe that contesting should be severely curtailed if not eliminated entirely. #It's a menace to the very spirit of the hobby, in my opinion.

What you say above is a clever way to disguise your complete dismissal of my point of view. #But if I am just another whiner, so be it. #

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Would you like me to predict when the topic will come up again? (As an aside, it's interesting that there were no complaints the weekend of the CW contest.)
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I'll let the folks that use CW take on CW contests. #I don't use CW.

I'm not in the habit of complaining about much of anything. #But I have never had any use for contesting. #But I am a young ham.


73..Kent

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wm7o @ Mar. 06 2004,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Give us some data to work with. How many contesters caused you QRM? 1? 10? 100? 1000? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>Are you actually suggesting that contesters don't cause QRM? #Are you really going to try to make a case that casual, non-contest QSO's are NOT at LEAST disrupted by contest operators? #I haven't counted, and I haven't logged the callsigns of offenders. #Perhaps someday I will.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, you said that contests cause the problems. So, if that is true, then logically there should be a large percentage of contesters causing QRM. If not, then it must be either 1) contesters use better filters than others and don't know they are QRMing or 2) a small minority of contesters are jerks, like in all segments of the population or 3) there's another explanation. I contend it's a minority who cause problems. You generalized, so support your generalization.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How did those stations place in past contests? Post their calls so we can check in the contest results when they are issued.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>How a station places in the contest is of little value. #Whether an offender is a seasoned contester or a green newbie does not matter. #It's the contest that is motivating their operation.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You stated that hypothesis before. If true, then those who cause QRM during a contest should have very good scores. If they don't, then obviously they are hurting their scores by QRMing others. That easy to check since results are published. My guess is that your hypothesis is flawed and it is not the contest that motivates good operators to cause intentional QRM, but that there are simply poor operators or individual jerks.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then you disagree that people will always find something to complain about and this weekend it happens to be contesting?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> ...
What you say above is a clever way to disguise your complete dismissal of my point of view. #But if I am just another whiner, so be it. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Nothing clever at all about it - it was a blatant attempt. You and others are just carrying on a tradition that goes back at least 30 plus years - complaining about contests that clog up the bands a few weekends a year. The rest of us coexist.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Would you like me to predict when the topic will come up again? (As an aside, it's interesting that there were no complaints the weekend of the CW contest.)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'll let the folks that use CW take on CW contests. #I don't use CW.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's a shame. If you did, you might complain less. Do you work the digital modes?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not in the habit of complaining about much of anything. #But I have never had any use for contesting. #But I am a young ham.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Great, I hope you learn how to coexist and become an old ham as time goes by.

73,

[wm7o]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Mar. 06 2004,20:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
No, you said that contests cause the problems. So, if that is true, then logically there should be a large percentage of contesters causing QRM. If not, then it must be either 1) contesters use better filters than others and don't know they are QRMing or 2) a small minority of contesters are jerks, like in all segments of the population or 3) there's another explanation. I contend it's a minority who cause problems. You generalized, so support your generalization.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

OK...so let me concede, for the sake of argument, that it is a minority. Why are these minority operators operating? Is it not the contest that has them on the air? If you are willing to concede that there is, in fact, even a minority of operators causing harmful QRM, then what is your solution? I've offered mine. Yes, my generalization regarding the contest stands. I never said that all contest operators caused problems.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
You stated that hypothesis before. If true, then those who cause QRM during a contest should have very good scores. If they don't, then obviously they are hurting their scores by QRMing others. That easy to check since results are published. My guess is that your hypothesis is flawed and it is not the contest that motivates good operators to cause intentional QRM, but that there are simply poor operators or individual jerks.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Again, I see no relationship to anyone's score. My point here is unaffected by what score a person's operating habits yield. It's the contest that I am faulting, not any one person's success or lack thereof.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Nothing clever at all about it - it was a blatant attempt. You and others are just carrying on a tradition that goes back at least 30 plus years - complaining about contests that clog up the bands a few weekends a year. The rest of us coexist.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Then I guess I am carrying on a worthy tradition indeed. I think that contesting stinks up the bands, and I am happy to say so.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
That's a shame. If you did, you might complain less. Do you work the digital modes?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I enjoy using digital modes. Maybe someday I will get into CW, but it's never interested me too much.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Great, I hope you learn how to coexist and become an old ham as time goes by.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Likewise.

73..Kent

Sigh.. (deep and drawn-out).. here we go again.


'contests are bad!' 'contesters are rude!' 'contests should be banned!'

'Ragchewers/nets are bad!' 'Ragchewers/net ops are rude!' 'Ragchewers/nets should be banned!'

YADDA YADDA YADDA! As K9STH noted.. the arguements PRO and CON about contesting have been going on EVER since the first two stations decided to see WHO could make the most number of QSO's in a given period of time.

Nothing new in this venue. BUT we have new hams coming on board all the time, so each time a contest comes up, the beraging and gnashing of teeth begins anew! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Since a couple of folks thinks contests should be banned due to the infractions comitted by a noisy and visible few.. then we MUST BE FAIR.

Let us BAN all activites that allow guys to MONOPOLIZE frequencies - such as the SSTV guys who view the 14230 - 14237 area as their PRIVATE preserve. If ANYONE not using SSTV 'DARES' to enter their kingdom, the full legal limit SSTV transmissions start RIGHT atop the person, REGARDLESS of the fact that no one was using the frequency at the time!

That takes care of one problem that irritates SOME folks. (I don't care, I tend to avoid that region anyway to keep from starting useless fights)

Then, we have to ban all of those guy who park on specific frequncies because 'they've ALWAYS met there at so and so time' and they always monitor so NO ONE outside their circle SHOULD Operate near it LEST the interloper be reminded that this freqency belongs to the Podunk Hollow Ragchewer's Group.

That takes care of another group.

Then, lets get rid of those PESKY nets! They meet and use a specific frequency EVERY DAY (in many cases) woe to the person who happens to be on the frequency BEFORE the net! They will be told, in no uncertain terms &quot;THE PODUNK HOLLOW TRAFFIC NET MEETS HERE IN TEN MINUTES! PLEASE QSY!'

That takes care of another group.

Then we have the DX'ers, digital modes operators, and others who congregate in/around/on certain frequencies for skeds, to use their digital modes an dhte like!

They MUST be banned.

So now.. what do you have?

A rather LARGE amount of quiet, unused, spectrum!

Don't laugh! YOU want to ban ALL contesting because of a few idiots who cause problems. Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

OK.. the above is NOT going to happen so the REALISTIC answer is to use the NON CONTEST BANDS Or the higher portions of the 160-10M bands!

Easier to deal with, less stress, less QRM, and you might just find that you havea clearer frequency for a longer period of time!

73

K3FT

[wm7o]

Does having an SSTV calling freq present problems? #Perhaps....feel free to take that on. #Feel free to take on ragchewers.....nets....etc etc. #This thread was started to take on contests, and yet the best argument that anyone seems to be able to come up with is that there are so many other troublesome scenarios in ham radio. #

Contesting is an organized scenario that sets itself up for this kind of scrutiny by laying to waste entire bands for extended periods of time. #

*sigh*

Perhaps we need this kind of chaos from time to time. #I guess I can see that. #Perhaps it provides intentional adversity for those that would like to operate without interference. #I just don't see the value. #

73..Kent

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ...let us see... folks get fussed at for NOT using their HF priviliges ( remember the threads about how QUIET certain bands are/were ? ), and NOT talking on their radios....now we have folks fussing about folks actually USING their radios, communicating with other stations ( even if just for a few seconds ), then going on and communicating with another station, and yet another station...all in the name of FRIENDSHIP, COMRADERY, ETC...just for the pure FUN of it ( no emergency, just for the fun of it ). Where is the dividing line ? ....oh, I see the reason, walk outside at night ( out from under those bright city lights ) ...I see the reason, every 28 or so days/nights we have a few nights with a FULL MOON, and you know you have read and seen information about how the MOON effects certain folks in certain ways...that could be part ( 5% ) of the problem ( if there really IS a problem )... sooooo if you dont like what you hear on your radio, find something constructive to DO, study to upgrade your license, or ELMER an interested party into amateur radio. Be nice to others, it will be returned to you. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wm7o @ Mar. 07 2004,01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Contesting is an organized scenario that sets itself up for this kind of scrutiny by laying to waste entire bands for extended periods of time. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Except for Field Day, which you've already conceded is OK, those &quot;entire bands for extended periods of time&quot; amount to 48 hours at a shot, normally scheduled at least a year in advance for the major contests. And the entire band is not used, since generally CW and SSB are on separate weekends.

Then there are the smaller contests, which generally run shorter time periods, but are also scheduled well in advance. However, no one seems to complain about the smaller contests.

To a large degree the amount of QRM is determined by the receive filters. What filters do you use? When there is a contest going on, I use either the 1.8 or 1.2 kHz IF filters and rarely hear much QRM. If you are using stock wide SSB filters, then you are going to hear lots of QRM, but most contesters won't hear you at all.

As far as how &quot;[laid] to waste&quot; the bands are, I made several dozen QSOs in the middle of the ARRL SSB DX contest on Saturday with no problem, about half on SSB and all casual rag chewing. There was plenty of room on the digital and CW portions of the bands, too.

Some people need something to complain about if it inconveniences them. Others learn to coexist a couple of weekends a year or upgrade their equipment.

73,

[wm7o]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Mar. 07 2004,05:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Then there are the smaller contests, which generally run shorter time periods, but are also scheduled well in advance. However, no one seems to complain about the smaller contests.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

OK. #So the smaller contests are likely smaller problems. #Perhaps we don't need to do anything about those.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
To a large degree the amount of QRM is determined by the receive filters. What filters do you use? When there is a contest going on, I use either the 1.8 or 1.2 kHz IF filters and rarely hear much QRM. If you are using stock wide SSB filters, then you are going to hear lots of QRM, but most contesters won't hear you at all.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Do you use 1.8 or 1.2 kHz filters for transmit as well?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Some people need something to complain about if it inconveniences them. Others learn to coexist a couple of weekends a year or upgrade their equipment.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I suppose you can keep summarily dismissing this discussion over and over. #But I am surprised that no one has answered the obvious question here: #What purpose does contesting serve? #Why is contesting so important that you would suggest upgrading my radio for the hope of possibly being able to filter out the contesters? #I challenge you to explain what purpose contesting serves that is not already served by other, less disruptive means.

73..Kent

[ky5u]

I feel there are too many contests. What does that mean? It means I don't like contests. BUT, many people do so why should we cut down on their enjoyment? There are too dang many baseball games and too many basketball games! Lets outlaw them too!

All we really want is to coexist, right? Sounds like a problem that could be solved by the contest organizers. Have &quot;off limits&quot; portions of all bands. Take off 5000 points if you are heard there. Is this a perfect solution? No! But it is better than nothing.

[wm7o]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AG4YO @ Mar. 07 2004,10:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I feel there are too many contests. #What does that mean? #It means I don't like contests. #BUT, many people do so why should we cut down on their enjoyment? #There are too dang many baseball games and too many basketball games! #Lets outlaw them too!

All we really want is to coexist, right? #Sounds like a problem that could be solved by the contest organizers. #Have &quot;off limits&quot; portions of all bands. #Take off 5000 points if you are heard there. #Is this a perfect solution? #No! #But it is better than nothing.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I can agree that compromised solutions like this are more reasonable than banning contests altogether.

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wm7o @ Mar. 07 2004,14:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Mar. 07 2004,05:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then there are the smaller contests, which generally run shorter time periods, but are also scheduled well in advance. However, no one seems to complain about the smaller contests. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>OK. #So the smaller contests are likely smaller problems. #Perhaps we don't need to do anything about those.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So where do you want to put the cut-off and how do you propose to limit the number of contestants?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you use 1.8 or 1.2 kHz filters for transmit as well?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I use 2.0 kHz filters on transmit and make sure I don't over-drive the rig. Squeezing audio into less spectrum makes a noticeable difference in SNR at the same total power level.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some people need something to complain about if it inconveniences them. Others learn to coexist a couple of weekends a year or upgrade their equipment.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>I suppose you can keep summarily dismissing this discussion over and over.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Absolutely.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But I am surprised that no one has answered the obvious question here: #What purpose does contesting serve? #Why is contesting so important that you would suggest upgrading my radio for the hope of possibly being able to filter out the contesters? #I challenge you to explain what purpose contesting serves that is not already served by other, less disruptive means.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I suggest you go take a look at some contest stations, then answer the question yourself. In most endeavors competition forces people to improve. In contesting that means improving equipment, antennas, operating techniques, planning, etc. Make yourself a list of qualities needed for emergency operations. You'll find that things like being able to keep a station on the air, operate non-stop, pass information quickly in spite of QRM and QRN, communicate with specific areas, fix equipment on the spur of the moment, plan for optimum propagation, etc. are needed both for emergency and for contest operational success.

Personally I don't care whether you upgrade your equipment or not. A large part of Part 97.1 is devoted to technical improvements. If you don't want to do that, it's up to you. I have good filters and contesters don't bother me, even though I don't seriously contest. It's your ears and you are complaining, not me.

What purpose does any competition serve? In the short term, it shows who did best at something. In the long term it forces people to improve things and serves as a measureable proof of relative improvement. I operate a couple of contests each year. My goal is not to win, but if I get a better score each year, I know my constant working on my equipment gave me measureable results. Working 50 countries on 1 band in one weekend with 100 watts and an indoor antenna is proof to me that if I need to use my station for something more important, it's ready to go.

How do you determine if you are capable?

Basically, as in all of life there are people who will complain about people who do something they don't consider important. Then there are people who will get along and find a way to coexist. Ham radio is no different.

You might ask me which group I think contributes more to the betterment of ham radio: the complainers or the ones who find a way to peacefully coexist.

73,

[K9STH]

WM7O:

Most, but not all, transceivers use the same filter for transmitting as when receiving. Thus, when you use a narrower filter for receiving you are also using it on transmit.

Frankly, the problems with filters are a &quot;two way street&quot;. There is a definite &quot;trade off&quot; in the fact that a narrower filter does restrict the audio characteristics on both transmit and receive. However, the narrower filter also cuts down on the bandwidth of both transmit and receive and thus allows stations to work much closer in terms of frequencies.

Also, the &quot;skirts&quot; of the filters play an important role. The &quot;steeper&quot; the &quot;skirts&quot;, the better that they are in the rejection of adjacent signals. Thus, the better (usually, but not always, more expensive) filters do much to eliminate the problems caused by having more stations on the band at the same time.

The more serious the contester the better the filters that they normally use in their equipment. This is opposed to the &quot;average&quot; amateur radio operator who just uses the filter that came &quot;stock&quot; in his/her equipment. It is unfortunate, but most of these &quot;stock&quot; filters are marginal at best and can cause all sorts of problems for the user. There are exceptions, of course, but too many manufacturers put in the minimum filter for everyday operation which are just not good enough for conditions where there are more amateurs than usual operating at the same time.

Since the same filter is usually used in both transmitting and receiving, the serious contester usually has a transmitted signal that is actually narrower than most as well as having the receive capabilities that reject considerably more of the signals on adjacent frequencies that can cause problems with the receivers that use wider bandwidth filters.

Although I do not normally use a transceiver on HF, the &quot;splits&quot; that I normally use do have very good filters in both the transmitters and receivers. In fact, my usual equipment uses exactly the same model filters in both units. In each case, the bandwidth of the filters that I use is 2.1 KHz when I operate on SSB. In two of my &quot;set ups&quot; I use Collins S-Lines and in the third I use the Heath SB-Line. The Collins equipment uses mechanical filters and the Heath uses 8 pole crystal filters. All of these have very good &quot;skirts&quot;. The only transceiver that I have for HF is a Heath SB-101 and it also uses a 2.1 KHz 8 pole filter as does my Heath SB-110A for 6 meters.

When the late W5QBM was alive, he lived approximately 1/2 mile across a golf course from me and we could actually &quot;wave&quot; to each other if we just happened to be on our towers at the same time. He was running a 4 element mono-band yagi on 20 meters and I run a 3 element mono-band yagi on 20 meters. He was running one of the only 3 Collins 30S-3 linear amplifiers ever built and I was running a Tempo 2001 and we both were running Collins S-Lines. During the week we could easily work SSB within 10 KHz of each other without any problems and this was when our beams were pointed right at each other. During a contest, we often got within 3 or 4 KHz of each other because of the increased QRM on the bands and didn't have any problems at all.

I do have to &quot;bite my tongue&quot; everytime I hear someone complaining about all the problems that they have with stations being &quot;too close&quot; in frequency, about the problems with contesters, etc. In the vast majority of cases the problems really lie with the equipment being used by the person doing the complaining. Yes, there are operators who use their speech processors incorrectly. There are those who over-drive their linear amplifiers (and the final stages in all SSB transmitters are linear amplifiers and often get over-driven as well as external linear amplifiers) and &quot;flat top&quot; causing all sorts of problems to others using the same band. But, the vast majority of the time these problems are caused by someone &quot;rag chewing&quot; and not by a serious contester.

Yes, there are those who participate in contests that do run their equipment improperly. However, virtually all (if not all) of the serious contesters know how to adjust their equipment for maximum performance and &quot;splattering&quot; and putting out improperly adjusted transmissions definitely does not result in maximum performance. It is primarily those &quot;casual&quot; contesters, the ones who usually spend their time rag chewing, who are operating their equipment improperly. They just tune up the way that they &quot;normally&quot; do (which results in &quot;flat topping&quot;, etc.) and start calling the DX.

However, the rag chewers operating during a contest period as just as likely, if not more so, to run their equipment improperly and cause problems to both those who are participating in the contest and those who are trying to rag chew. Of course it is best to actually &quot;look at&quot; your signal on an oscilloscope, spectrum analyzer, etc. But, there are definitely ways of using just the meter on the transmitter to adjust your transmitted signal so that you have pretty close to a 99 percent chance of being completely &quot;clean&quot;.

Unfortunately, a number of the instruction manuals for various manufacturers transceivers are just plain wrong in telling you how to adjust the equipment. If you use the methods / meter readings given in the manuals you will almost be assured of &quot;flat topping&quot; and putting out spurious signals. A simple way of adjusting your transmitter is to tune it using CW and make note of either the power output or the current drawn by the final amplifier. Then switch to SSB. You then adjust the microphone gain so that the meter peaks to about 30 percent of the reading that you got when tuning up on voice peaks. This comes pretty darn close to having the same peak power output as when using a continuous carrier like on CW. A normal analog meter just cannot follow the actual peak readings from a voice modulated signal. An average on an analog meter of between 25 and 30 percent usually indicates pretty darn close to the desired peak power output.

If everyone would adjust their SSB transmitters in this way, I would bet that well over 90 percent of the problems that are caused by improperly adjusted transmitters would disappear. Then, if everyone would invest in good, narrower, filters, then many more of the problems encountered in operating on the amateur bands would disappear. Unfortunately, many amateurs cannot afford to pay for better filters for their equipment. But, if it were me, I would save up and obtain a better filter before I would spend money on any other accessory for my rig.

Glen, K9STH

[wm7o]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
So where do you want to put the cut-off and how do you propose to limit the number of contestants?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not sure. #But that seems like a good topic for discussion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I use 2.0 kHz filters on transmit and make sure I don't over-drive the rig. Squeezing audio into less spectrum makes a noticeable difference in SNR at the same total power level.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That makes sense. #I'm fairly certain, though, that if I were to install a narrow SSB filter in my rig that it would not be something that I could switch in and out. #I don't think I would be happy with the AF quality out of a 2.0 kHz filter for my regular operating.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But I am surprised that no one has answered the obvious question here: #What purpose does contesting serve? #Why is contesting so important that you would suggest upgrading my radio for the hope of possibly being able to filter out the contesters? #I challenge you to explain what purpose contesting serves that is not already served by other, less disruptive means.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I suggest you go take a look at some contest stations, then answer the question yourself. In most endeavors competition forces people to improve. In contesting that means improving equipment, antennas, operating techniques, planning, etc. Make yourself a list of qualities needed for emergency operations. You'll find that things like being able to keep a station on the air, operate non-stop, pass information quickly in spite of QRM and QRN, communicate with specific areas, fix equipment on the spur of the moment, plan for optimum propagation, etc. are needed both for emergency and for contest operational success.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There's no disagreeing with your point on competition. #The issue with contests is that they force the competition on everyone...not just those that choose to participate in the contest. #Can I QSY up the band? #Sure...but then I'm competing with all of the other stations that have been driven up there by the contest. #A band like 75m is crowded already, especially in the general sub-band.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
What purpose does any competition serve? In the short term, it shows who did best at something. In the long term it forces people to improve things and serves as a measureable proof of relative improvement.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What is the value of showing who did best at making contacts, when it's at the expense of many others that are not interested in such a pursuit? #Are there not many other ways to provide &quot;measureable proof&quot; to one's self of improvements? #Do you need to wait for a contest to demonstrate improvements to your station?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I operate a couple of contests each year. My goal is not to win, but if I get a better score each year, I know my constant working on my equipment gave me measureable results.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Are the band conditions really so reliable that you can measure your station's performance by your success in a contest or two every year?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Working 50 countries on 1 band in one weekend with 100 watts and an indoor antenna is proof to me that if I need to use my station for something more important, it's ready to go.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Seems like that is one way to determine your readiness.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Basically, as in all of life there are people who will complain about people who do something they don't consider important. Then there are people who will get along and find a way to coexist. Ham radio is no different.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I'll gladly concede that there are benefits to contesting. #I'm sure that it does sharpen your operating skills in many ways. #What I am questioning is whether those benefits are worth the disruption that contesting causes, when there are so many other ways to achieve the same benefits. #There are so many awards available for so many types of ham operating. #There are so many other ways to measure the performance of and the improvements in one's station.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
You might ask me which group I think contributes more to the betterment of ham radio: the complainers or the ones who find a way to peacefully coexist.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That is one question that I do not need to ask.

73..Kent http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[wm7o]

I appreciate your comments, Glen. That's good info and good points, too.

73..Kent

STH,

I grant you that quality filters do make a difference, and I do use quality filters as well as quality equipment.... I also recognize the possibility that a contesting station may not be able to hear the QSO in progress when he starts his transmissions....

BUT, even you must admit that when an operator plops down one KC or one half of a KC away from an existing QSO, a 1.8 KC filter won't keep out any QRM.....

I also know that these ops could hear the QSO just fine because when I protested, they answered me on the first try!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To me, tihs is RUDE operation in the first degree..... &amp;^%$ them people.... No more mister nice guy from me.... It's war, whether it's in the lower part of the band or not..... I tried the &quot;coexistence&quot; thing... It doesn't work unless both side partake.... THEY do not partake in &quot;coexistence&quot;... So, I declare war on them SOB's....

Enough is enough....

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wm7o @ Mar. 07 2004,16:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm fairly certain, though, that if I were to install a narrow SSB filter in my rig that it would not be something that I could switch in and out. #I don't think I would be happy with the AF quality out of a 2.0 kHz filter for my regular operating.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't know what rig you are using, but every rig I've had was capable of switching or adjusting filters. But if you are striving for audio quality, you will defintely be at a disadvantage. My objective is to communicate and I really don't care whether it sounds like good audio or not.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The issue with contests is that they force the competition on everyone...not just those that choose to participate in the contest. #Can I QSY up the band? #Sure...but then I'm competing with all of the other stations that have been driven up there by the contest. #A band like 75m is crowded already, especially in the general sub-band.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So you want to be able to guarantee your own frequencies in the bands you decide when you decide? And if a few thousand contesters decide they want to use them a couple weekends a year, that's just too bad?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is the value of showing who did best at making contacts, when it's at the expense of many others that are not interested in such a pursuit? #Are there not many other ways to provide &quot;measureable proof&quot; to one's self of improvements? #Do you need to wait for a contest to demonstrate improvements to your station?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
OK, what is the value of prohibiting those who are interested in such a persuit? What ways do you propose to provide measureable proof under real world circumstances?

When I change my antenna, for example, I certainly can run some tests, but if I can't talk to anyone in Germany, for example, it may be because no one is on the air. However, during a major contest I can pretty much tell if my station is really working right or not. After all, I've talked around the world with 1 watt when conditions are right. That is not indication that things are great. If I can do it during a contest, with QRM and QRN, that's a different indicator.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are the band conditions really so reliable that you can measure your station's performance by your success in a contest or two every year?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Compensating for band conditions in evaluating the results is fairly easy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Working 50 countries on 1 band in one weekend with 100 watts and an indoor antenna is proof to me that if I need to use my station for something more important, it's ready to go.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>Seems like that is one way to determine your readiness.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, it's is indeed only one way to evaluate things. But it's the best way I know of to put your total operating setup under great stress and see if it still holds up.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll gladly concede that there are benefits to contesting. #I'm sure that it does sharpen your operating skills in many ways. #What I am questioning is whether those benefits are worth the disruption that contesting causes, when there are so many other ways to achieve the same benefits. #There are so many awards available for so many types of ham operating. #There are so many other ways to measure the performance of and the improvements in one's station.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
OK, tell me some better competitive ways to show that one can find a way to make contacts in crowded band conditions and allow one to evaluate themselves relative to others trying to achieve the same goals. Most awards don't have that component built in.

Explain how banning contests would further the objectives of Part 97.1.

Explain why such things are not worth some 3% of time, when the other 97% of the time, plus 100% of the WARC bands and other modes are available for other persuits.

73,
Walt, W5ALT

[wm7o]

I am not sure I would go so far as to declare war on anyone. But I do think that contests that disrupt non-contest QSOs are problems that need to be resolved.

73..Kent

[KC0OFZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wm7o @ Mar. 07 2004,15:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am not sure I would go so far as to declare war on anyone. #But I do think that contests that disrupt non-contest QSOs are problems that need to be resolved.

73..Kent[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And that solution is outlawing what you don't agree with or enjoy...nice, very nice

[KC0OFZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Mar. 07 2004,15:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...OK, tell me some better competitive ways to show that one can find a way to make contacts in crowded band conditions and allow one to evaluate themselves relative to others trying to achieve the same goals. Most awards don't have that component built in.

Explain how banning contests would further the objectives of Part 97.1.

Explain why such things are not worth some 3% of time, when the other 97% of the time, plus 100% of the WARC bands and other modes are available for other persuits.

73,
Walt, W5ALT[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Walt, there simply is the push to eliminate what they don't agree with in order to make radio &quot;fit&quot; their ideals.

[wm7o]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0OFZ @ Mar. 07 2004,14:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wm7o @ Mar. 07 2004,15http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif9)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am not sure I would go so far as to declare war on anyone. #But I do think that contests that disrupt non-contest QSOs are problems that need to be resolved.

73..Kent[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And that solution is outlawing what you don't agree with or enjoy...nice, very nice[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If you take the time to read the entire thread, you will find that I have stood down somewhat from that position.

However, if no other solution is successful, then I see no problem with a rulemaking.

73..Kent

[wm7o]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0OFZ @ Mar. 07 2004,14:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Walt, there simply is the push to eliminate what they don't agree with in order to make radio &quot;fit&quot; their ideals.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
My &quot;push&quot; here is simply to stop the reckless and careless QRM caused by contesters during the major SSB contests. That's all.

[K9STH]

NJ1K:

I am the first to admit that there are contest participants who definitely are not &quot;first class&quot; operators. I am also the first to point out that there are a whole lot of non-contest operators who are not &quot;first class&quot; operators. Take a look at some of the other threads in this particular forum on QRZ.com and see just how many people are complaining about exactly the same thing. But, those complaints are NOT during contests! They are during &quot;normal&quot; operating times. Thus, it is definitely not &quot;fair&quot; to say that only contesters cause problems!

As far as trying to hold a rag chew in the middle of the portion of the band that has the most contest activity, that is, to put it bluntly, assinine! The QRM level is usually going to be such that it doesn't matter if one of the interferring stations can hear you since there are going to be quite a number of other stations on the same frequency that are going to interfere with you that are not going to be able to copy you. Under those circumstances the only reasonable thing to do is to QSY to a part of the band where contesters are not so plentiful (if there at all).

To attempt to hold a rag chew type of QSO in the middle of a bunch of contesters is futile. Granted, there are a few (very few) contesters that don't give a damn about you. But, there are going to be considerably more that can't hear you even if you start running the full legal limit. Unless you have a better than average antenna, running more power isn't going to do you that much good. Then, if you are running a good antenna, then it is going to be directional and you are going to be competing in only a relatively small direction.

Instead of trying to cause problems, what is wrong with taking the sensible route and moving higher in the band to a frequency that is not being interferred with by contesters? At least 9 times out of 10 that is going to relieve your problem. As for the possible 1 out of 10 times that it doesn't, then that is just one of the breaks of the game. Frankly, you are not insured of a &quot;clear&quot; frequency at any time that you operate. There are definitely times on various bands that even on a weeknight that I can't find a &quot;clear&quot; frequency. I don't get mad, I just change bands or go watch TV for a while if I don't want to join an existing QSO.

Glen, K9STH

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ... then you have the folks with their call sign on a machine that repeats it over and over and over ( automated stuff...for those too LAZY to do it live each &amp; every time )... and those who cant hear no one under a s9+30 on the bar graph ( heard a lot of them ) ........then you have the &quot; rg8u &quot; stations and other assorted fake call signs floating through the bands...so in just LISTENING, it is all kinds of fun !! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif # # #oh well... a beautiful SUNDAY AFTERNOON in Northern Alabama ( windy though even at ground level ), sunny and about 60 degrees #F #outside .... GOD bless all of you #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif #---kd4amg---

QUOTE: Instead of trying to cause problems, what is wrong with taking the sensible route and moving higher in the band to a frequency that is not being interferred with by contesters?

I am NOT the one who is trying to CAUSE problems... I am not the one who cranks up on top of existing QSO's... I have no need to QSY where contesters are not operating... I have plenty of antenna, antenna gain and power to give em... They move when I speak out, they have no choice.... But one would think that they would learn a lesson and stay away from EXISTING QSO's, lest ALL contesters be damned.....

Please do not blame this all on shifting band conditions, lousy filters, etc... That is clearly NOT the case... Everytime they come onto a frequency that is already occupied (at least by me) they will get blasted again and again and again until they move.....

[wm7o]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Mar. 07 2004,14http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif8)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The issue with contests is that they force the competition on everyone...not just those that choose to participate in the contest. #Can I QSY up the band? #Sure...but then I'm competing with all of the other stations that have been driven up there by the contest. #A band like 75m is crowded already, especially in the general sub-band.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So you want to be able to guarantee your own frequencies in the bands you decide when you decide? And if a few thousand contesters decide they want to use them a couple weekends a year, that's just too bad?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I do not care to compete for a frequency that I am already using. #This isn't about whether someone else is using my favorite frequency. #Contesters will tune up within a kc of an existing QSO and have at it. #Or worse yet...and this happens several times a night on 75m during a contest...someone will try to work a DX station in split mode on a frequency on which there is an active QSO. #They clearly do not even bother to listen before calling and calling. #I heard this happen several times just this weekend alone. #Now, it's true that our QSO was in the lower part of the band, but we had an active, ongoing QSO. #

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
OK, what is the value of prohibiting those who are interested in such a persuit? What ways do you propose to provide measureable proof under real world circumstances?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I would be in favor of an effective solution short of prohibiting contests altogether.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
When I change my antenna, for example, I certainly can run some tests, but if I can't talk to anyone in Germany, for example, it may be because no one is on the air. However, during a major contest I can pretty much tell if my station is really working right or not.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

This is a good point.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
After all, I've talked around the world with 1 watt when conditions are right. That is not indication that things are great. If I can do it during a contest, with QRM and QRN, that's a different indicator.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Wait...I thought that contesters did not bother you with QRM?? #And where does the QRN come from? #Is that contest-generated QRN?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Compensating for band conditions in evaluating the results is fairly easy.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

How so?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
OK, tell me some better competitive ways to show that one can find a way to make contacts in crowded band conditions and allow one to evaluate themselves relative to others trying to achieve the same goals. Most awards don't have that component built in.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No, but DX pileups certainly do. #I hear those all the time. #I don't have any problem with those. #Now, we are pretty much back to where I started with this. #You have admitted in your responses here that contests cause crowded band conditions and QRM. #You also help to make my case that it is the very competetive nature of contests that causes this ostensibly intentional overpopulation of a band. #

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Explain how banning contests would further the objectives of Part 97.1.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

My problem with contesters is the the interference and disruption that they cause to non-contesters. #

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Explain why such things are not worth some 3% of time, when the other 97% of the time, plus 100% of the WARC bands and other modes are available for other persuits.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Such things are not worth any % of time as long as they cause interference and disruption. #

73..Kent

[KC0OFZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NJ1K @ Mar. 07 2004,16:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am NOT the one who is trying to CAUSE problems... I am not the one who cranks up on top of existing QSO's... I have no need to QSY where contesters are not operating... I have plenty of antenna, antenna gain and power to give em... They move when I speak out, they have no choice.... But one would think that they would learn a lesson and stay away from EXISTING QSO's, lest ALL contesters be damned.....

Please do not blame this all on shifting band conditions, lousy filters, etc... That is clearly NOT the case... Everytime they come onto a frequency that is already occupied (at least by me) they will get blasted again and again and again until they move.....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, it is not filters, band conditions ect, it is just the fact you feel you OWN a frequency where you ragchew on a regular basis and contesting has no value to you and therefore should be eliminated so radio fits your ideals. And by the way you just admitted you QRM stations, (&quot;they will get blasted again and again and again until they move&quot;) two wrongs don't make a right so you just made yourself no better than the contesters you complain about.

[wm7o]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0OFZ @ Mar. 07 2004,15:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NJ1K @ Mar. 07 2004,16:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am NOT the one who is trying to CAUSE problems... I am not the one who cranks up on top of existing QSO's... I have no need to QSY where contesters are not operating... I have plenty of antenna, antenna gain and power to give em... They move when I speak out, they have no choice.... But one would think that they would learn a lesson and stay away from EXISTING QSO's, lest ALL contesters be damned.....

Please do not blame this all on shifting band conditions, lousy filters, etc... That is clearly NOT the case... Everytime they come onto a frequency that is already occupied (at least by me) they will get blasted again and again and again until they move.....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, it is not filters, band conditions ect, it is just the fact you feel you OWN a frequency where you ragchew on a regular basis and contesting has no value to you and therefore should be eliminated so radio fits your ideals. #And by the way you just admitted you QRM stations, (&quot;they will get blasted again and again and again until they move&quot;) two wrongs don't make a right so you just made yourself no better than the contesters you complain about.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
KC0OFZ:

NJ1K has made it quite clear that he is talking about a QSO in progress. If he is part of an ongoing QSO, and as S9+20 contester gets on the air 1 kc away, what should he do? Does he not have the right to continue his QSO without interference?

[K9STH]

The only time that NJ1K would be in the position of having his QSO interrupted would be at the beginning of the contest. Any time thereafter that he started a QSO, he would have knowingly begun a QSO in the midst of contest activity and therefore has nothing to &quot;gripe&quot; about!

If he was conducting his QSO well outside of the frequency range that the majority of contest operation is on, then he most certainly has a valid gripe if someone does cause problems with contest operations. But, if he comes into the midst of the &quot;fray&quot;, even if the particular frequency appeared open in his location when he called CQ, then he does so at his own peril and has no valid reason to complain. It is just a matter of common sense. You don't go looking for trouble unless you expect to find trouble. You don't start a rag chew type of QSO in the middle of where stations are involved in a major contest unless you expect to have problems from interference from those stations.

If you are conducting a rag chew at the beginning of a contest, and if you didn't know that a contest is going to be conducted, then you do have a right to expect those who can copy you to show some courtesy until you finish your QSO. However, if the band changes and you start having problems, then it is best to QSY since those who are now interferring with you have as much right to the frequency as do you.

Also, there is a very good chance that although the interferring station may be able to copy you, that they were not copying the station(s) that you were working and therefore came to the conclusion that the frequency was available. This is especially true when the interferring station is more than a few hundred Hertz off of your frequency. Just because you can copy both stations doesn't mean that other stations can copy both you and the station that you are working.

It is my opinion that there is room for both contest and non-contest operation on the same band at the same time. Yes, there may be a few overlapping signals where the two factions meet. But, by and large, it is pretty easy for those who are not involved in the contest to congregate towards the &quot;top end&quot; of the band and stay clear of the contest operation. Also, the high end of each sub-band is available for operation by those holding a General Class or higher license whereas the lower portions of each sub-band require an Advanced and/or Extra Class. Thus anyone who has any privileges on 160 through 15 meter SSB can operate on the higher portions of the sub-bands.

The frequency that you end up on may not be your &quot;preferred&quot; frequency. However, there is no guarantee that your &quot;preferred&quot; frequency is going to be available any time. But, in the vast majority of time you are going to be able to conduct a non-contest QSO without any abnormal problems if you go to the higher end of the sub-bands.

I realize that anything that I post in this matter will probably not change the mind of some of those who are very passionate against contesting. However, it may influence some of those who are reading the posts to this thread who may be &quot;on the fence&quot; concerning the validity of the complaints. Also, just maybe, it might influence someone who was against contest operations who now may realize that there is definitely a place for both contest and non-contest operations on the same band at the same time.

Glen, K9STH

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wm7o @ Mar. 07 2004,19:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> After all, I've talked around the world with 1 watt when conditions are right. That is not indication that things are great. If I can do it during a contest, with QRM and QRN, that's a different indicator.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Wait...I thought that contesters did not bother you with QRM?? #And where does the QRN come from? #Is that contest-generated QRN?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Contests don't cause QRN, but it is there. QRM and QRN are both a fact of life. I never said it bothers me - it seems to bother you, not me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Compensating for band conditions in evaluating the results is fairly easy.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>How so?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You need to get a textbook on propagation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, but DX pileups certainly do. #I hear those all the time. #I don't have any problem with those. #Now, we are pretty much back to where I started with this. #You have admitted in your responses here that contests cause crowded band conditions and QRM. #You also help to make my case that it is the very competetive nature of contests that causes this ostensibly intentional overpopulation of a band.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, a DX pile up just shows that you can communicate with 1 station and doesn't even show any consistency. There's plenty of poor operators and QRM in most DX pileups. So maybe we should outlaw DX pileups, too? I think that goes full circle to my first post.#

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My problem with contesters is the the interference and disruption that they cause to non-contesters. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There are always people complaining about disruption or inconvenience to non-whatever-type of operators. Again, we've come full circle.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Such things are not worth any % of time as long as they cause interference and disruption. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If you prefer intolerance to peaceful coexistance, then so be it ...

73,

[wm7o]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w5alt @ Mar. 07 2004,17:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you prefer intolerance to peaceful coexistance, then so be it ...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The coexistance that we have now with contests is anything but peaceful. As long as there are contesters that put their contesting ahead of the most basic courteous operating practices, there will be no peaceful coexistence.

73..Kent

[w5alt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wm7o @ Mar. 07 2004,21:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The coexistance that we have now with contests is any