Nets on WARC bands

[n0nwo]

How do you all feel about nets on the WARC bands?

I have always been under the impression that the WARC bands were to be contest free AND net free. But lately I have started hearing nets on the warc band. There is a county hunter net on 10.114 now and they seem to think they own that frequency. Heaven help anyone on that frequency using it when the net decided to claim there turn.

I know it is not illeagle, but are nets on the WARC bands unethicle?

Minton - n0nwo

[KA4DPO]

One of the nice things about the WARC bands is there are no contests. I don't know of any rule that says you can't conduct a net but I wish the community would refrain. Especially on 17 meters.

[K3STX]

Why especially on 17 meters?

Perhaps a more appropriate question would be "How do you feel about nets on ANY band?" I think they are all silly. Talking to the same person day after day; isn't that what the telephone is for? I always thought the allure of Ham radio was like fishing for a conversation, you never know what you get once you call/anser that CQ.

paul

(here we go)

[WB2WIK]

"Nets" go back to nearly the beginning of amateur radio and have been popular for many decades. That doesn't mean they're not silly, and I agree a lot of them are (silly).

Specific directed nets for traffic handling probably still have their place, until the day when 100% of everyone on the planet has internet access -- and maybe even a bit after that, since traffic handling is mostly "practice" for emergency preparedness, and you never know when the practice might come in handy.

County hunter, state hunter and DX nets defeat a lot of the fun of ham radio for me, and I wouldn't dream of being part of one, ever. But some seem to enjoy them, and who are "we" to spoil their fun? Then again, in non-contest situations I never use the packet cluster for DX spotting, either -- takes away the same fun. The fun is in the successful "hunt," and there's not much hunting going on when somebody else tells you exactly where the fish are.

I'm glad there are no laws prohibiting or encouraging nets, and that by "gentleman's agreement" the nets have pretty much stayed off the WARC bands.

One reasonable place for nets: VHF-UHF bands. Lots of wide open space, almost impossible to really QRM anybody when any user can QSY hundreds of kHz if he wants to, and a real need for increased activity that might be promoted by a "meeting place" environment like a directed net with a powerful, well-equipped net control. No harm, and these nets actually help people get together who ordinarily wouldn't find each other.

30m, 17m and 12m are all too narrow for regular net activity that really would encroach on the majority of operators and their enjoyment.

[AG3Y]

There are those of us who would NEVER attempt to work another station, local or the rarest of DX, with the assistance of a net control operator or DX cluster. And then there are those of us who will use ANY MEANS AVAILABE to snag that other station, some even going over the edge of legality in order to do it!

Personally, I am very sorry to see any kind of contests or net operations starting up on the WARC bands. As originally assigned, such operation was VERBOTEN, but that point seems to be being forgotten more and more.

Speaking of contests, I understand that the biggest SSB contest of them all is coming up this weekend. All I can say, being the "digital fanatic" that I am , is, "See you on the digital bands! " http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

73 , Jim AG3Y

[kj5t]

I have never worked any nets on the WARC bands, but I have enjoyed working nets on the otherbands.. Ragchew nets are fun to sit around and chat with hams and such, and the WAS/DX nets are fun to see who all you can work during the net period. Each to their own... The North American Youth net gives a place for young hams to have a chance net controlling a net, and offers a meeting ground for young hams all over the place.

73'
+Steve/KD5OWO

[W2LYS]

Which are the WARC bands (30, 17, & 10, I guess) & why are they called the WARC bands? I can't find anything on the net to explain this...

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W2LYS @ Oct. 28 2004,15:05)]Which are the WARC bands (30, 17, & 10, I guess) & why are they called the WARC bands? #I can't find anything on the net to explain this...
30, 17 and 12.

WARC is the abbreviation for World Amateur Radio Conference. The three bands were created by the WARC in 1979.

[W3MIV]

With the exception of traffic and the maritime mobile net, most of the nets I hear are like recycled CB porridge but at far greater distances. The topics are similarly innane on many, if not most. Same thing on 2m, at least around my locale.

Once in a while I listen for a few minutes to the DX nets with some amusement. I could probably get a card from Neptune with sufficient relays, but it seems an ethical stretch. And, of course, "59" covers everything from utterly inaudible up through "yer 60 over nine here!"

With very few exceptions, most nets could disappear without a trace and the end result would probably be a benefit.

[WF7I]

I think the rapid fades on 17m and the seldom openings of 12m will kill most nets anyway. And unless you want to do a CW net, 30m is out.

Sure, with a "LEeeeeeeeEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnneeeaarrrr", you might be able to keep 17 open for a little while longer. But from my experience, you're lucky to get through a 15 min QSO before the path shuts down on you.

60m?? That may be an issue. But, I don't have a 'tenna for that band and never did look into that crazy channelization junk. My guess is most other hams won't want to mess with it either.

[ai4ep]

If you dont want to participitate, then dont...no one is forcing you to.

[AG3Y]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Oct. 28 2004,15:25)]Quote[/b] (W2LYS @ Oct. 28 2004,15:05)]Which are the WARC bands (30, 17, & 10, I guess) & why are they called the WARC bands? #I can't find anything on the net to explain this...
30, 17 and 12.

WARC is the abbreviation for World Amateur Radio Conference. The three bands were created by the WARC in 1979.
Whoops, one word wrong there: It's the World ADMINISTRATIVE Radio Conference

The IARU ( International Amateur Radio Union ) sends delegates to the Conference

You can find out more about both agencies here:

IARU web page (http://www.iaru.org/ac-97min.html)

There are dozens of other sites, if you use the correct phrase to look for them in your search engine!

Hope this helps ! 73 Jim AG3Y

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Oct. 28 2004,18:00)]Whoops, one word wrong there: #It's the World ADMINISTRATIVE Radio Conference
Thanks for the clarification, Jim. I couldn't remember what the "A" represented, but wanted to make some reply since it seemed the question was not being answered.

[AG3Y]

Oh, ya, the W.A.R.C. covers ALL RF emissions and carries the weight of a treaty! Pretty heady stuff !

[k7unz]

I'd rather see 30 remain free of nets of any kind, but nothing prihibits them being there. So....

What I would like to see is a little use of common sense when establishing the net frequency. Why in the world would you drop a net right in the middle of the 20 khz of most used band space, when you have 30 khz of relatively little used space in the rest of the band??

I have consistantly observed that there are large portions of the remaining 30 khz which are inactive throughout the day, and could easily support net activity. But instead, it pops up right in the middle of everything in the busy part of the band.

Go figure.....

Jim/k7unz

[k7unz]

Make that "prohibits" not "prihibits" them from being there..... Forgot to switch keyboards and this one doesn't spell very well......

Jim/k7unz

[n0nwo]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Oct. 27 2004,15:24)]If you dont want to participitate, then dont...no one is forcing you to.
Quote[/b] ]If you dont want to participitate, then dont...no one is forcing you to.

Wanna bet!!! just try to hold a frequency you are currently having a QSO on when a net thinks they have the exclusive right to that frequency at that time.

First off: I feel the WARC bands are far too narrow to be garbaged up with nets. They have been net free for 25 years and I feel it is just plain rude and bad manners for the county Hunters on 10.114 or any other net to be on the WARC bands.

These nets on WARC BANDS really steam me. One of the reasons I work the WARC bands is to get away from that foolish crap.

Minton - n0nwo

[wu3u]

Can someone tell me: Are the WARC bands contest-free as per FCC regulations or is it just a gentlemens' agreement?

Tim
N8LXR

[n0nwo]

contest free and net free are by way of gentlemen agreement. It is not ileagle but is considered very bad form.

Minton - n0nwo

[wu3u]

First off: I feel the WARC bands are far too narrow to be garbaged up with nets. They have been net free for 25 years and I feel it is just plain rude and bad manners for the county Hunters on 10.114 or any other net to be on the WARC bands.

N0NWO

OM:

Why is it "rude?"

A net accomodates several stations with one frequency
so in that sense, it is a very efficient use of spectrum.

Why is your operating interest greater than that of county hunters? Or people running a WAS net? Or a traffic net? Or a weather spotting net?

I don't join nets but for the life of me, I have never understood the penchant that some Hams have to remark that a certain activity is not a "good" use of the Amateur spectrum.

There is no "good" use, only legal or illegal.

We all have an equal right to use the bands the way we see fit within FCC rules.

Even on a busy contest weekend, I can always find a place to operate.

Live and let live, know what I mean?

Tim
N8LXR

[n0nwo]

The reason I think it is rude, is that nets tend to think they own a frequency and wwill push you off when they want to luse it. IT has happened to me on other bands and a couple of nights ago on 10.114. If nets did as they should, and find a clean frequency, or at least ask politely, it would go a long way tward changing my mind. But nets seldom do as they should when it is time for them to start. There is my main gripe and that is why I would like to see nets leave WARC bands alone.

Minton - n0nwo

[wu3u]

I should clarify.

A net has no right to a particular frequency nor does any Amateur station.

Given that, in the few instances when I've been in QSO with a station and someone from a given Net breaks in to politely ask if we would QSY up a few KCs, I've always said "Sure."

It usually wasn't a problem to do so, just a few turns of the VFO and a few minutes later, I was back in QSO with the station I was working.

Live ane let live...that's the ticket.

Tim
N8LXR

[wu3u]

NWO:

Well then OM, your problem is not with nets in and of themselves but the way in which the ones you have enocountered have assumed a frequency your were using.

Your post, however, seems to suggest that you regard all net activity as "garbage" and "silly."

I may or may not agree but whether a certain on-air activity is worthwhile is the perogative of individual hams not the Ham Radio community at-large.

Running a net on any band, is not rude in and of itself yet you seem to harbor that sentiment.

In my case, I'd just QSY up or down a little and continue to enjoy Ham Radio.

Tim
N8LXR

[n0nwo]

Basicly, Tim, I see your point, but few nets ever follow the same rules they expect others to follow. again I point out that for 25 years, there have been no nets or contest on WARC bands. There is a hint there. It has been a wonderful time, to be on a band that did now sound like large parts of 20, 40, and 80m , but it will soon be over. people are soon going to be carving up their own realestate on the WARC bands, building there fences and heaven help you if you are in qso when they want it.

so much for the gentlemen's bands. May they rest in peace.

Minton - n0nwo

[wu3u]

Minton OM:

I think maybe your making way more of this than is the case.

Look, I just spent two hours on HF CW, on both 40 and 80 meters.

I was rag chewing up a storm, worked several stations, and never had a problem finding a place to operate with very little QRM.

Since you mentioned 30 meters, I am assuming that you are using CW.

I use a 500 HZ filter for one thing, along with DSP filtering as well.

This goes a long way toward being able to use a very narrow slice of band.

Are you using some sort of filtering? Or is your receiver wide open?

When I got really good filters, things were a lot nicer.

TP

[kj5t]

While running the North American Youth Net before, when I heard people on the frequency I just went up 3 or 5 KC's and stayed out of trouble with anybody..

[KG4ZQZ]

- nets on the WARC bands? hmm... not illegal AFAIK but certainly unusual enough that when you hear one the first thought is "Are these folks in the right place?"

- my beef? on 17 there is little bandwidth and some of these nets attract boneheads using amps in lieu of a good antenna, hearing aid batteries, or operator skill... some of these signals are up to 9kHz wide and totally wipe out any QRP (or even 100W) contacts...

(note, i'm not saying all hf amp users are boneheads - most are good ops - it's just the couple two or three times you get stomped on that you might develop an impression - and yes, i realize that we can't always hear a QSO in progress on a freq)

- just my $0.02

[kj5t]

I personally use 100 watts, with no fancy amps... Just a barefoot station, I think I do pretty well tho during nets, I have been asked to do relays before. But thats not the topic here...

As far as getting stomped on, that happens to all of us.. somtimes the guys with Amps just can't hear the little guy.

[G0GQK]

There is no ruling to prevent "nets" on 12 , 17 and 30 metres, and why should there be ? Radio amateurs have been meeting their friends on the bands since the dawn of amateur radio.

There are quite sufficient rules already regarding the use of frequencies without introducing any more.

73, Mel

[gw4rcm]

Quote[/b] (G0GQK @ Oct. 29 2004,13:45)]There is no ruling to prevent "nets" on 12 , 17 and 30 metres, and why should there be ? #Radio amateurs have been meeting their friends on the bands since the dawn of amateur radio.

There are quite sufficient rules already regarding the use of frequencies without introducing any more.

73, Mel
This thread reminds me of my local British Legion club.
God help anybody who sits in an old curmedgeons seat,
"I,ve sat here everynight for 40 years get off", said whilst waving a walking stick
RCM

[n0nwo]

Quote[/b] ]This thread reminds me of my local British Legion club.
God help anybody who sits in an old curmedgeons seat,
"I,ve sat here everynight for 40 years get off", said whilst waving a walking stick
RCM

I am not really sure what you mean. Depending on how one reads this, it could be read in favor of either side of the issue. Care to exlpain more clearly?

Minton == n0nwo

[n5tjd]

What NWO is saying in my mind is that there is nothing wrong with nets, but they aren't for everyone. Having a net isn't the problem. It is where. Some bands are very large. Others are very small. The WARC bands are pretty narrow, and when you have people setting up nets there soon, you won't have room for anything else. I say keep the nets on 80, 40, and 20. Those bands are large enough to accomodate everyone.

[n0nwo]

DING - DING - DING - DING!!!!!!!

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

wd5wzb, you are the only one so far to REALLY get it! I was beginning to think I must be to stupid to make myself clear. (I may be, you understand, I just don't like for it to show). http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Minton -- n0nwo

[k6ncx]

Quote[/b] (n0nwo @ Oct. 28 2004,10:23)]I have always been under the impression that the WARC bands were to be contest free AND net free.
Hmmmm. Where did that "impression" come from? Who said they should be contest- or net-free?

[W0UZR]

I'm one that doesn't care for 17 meters. The conditions are too undependable to rely on for skeds. It's fun to make some contacts and that, but I'm turning into be not that type of operator anymore.

I am a lot more into setting up skeds and talking with my friends. And 20 and 40 are a lot more predictable to be reasonable sure that I will have conditions to be able to talk to him. The people I talk with are the same way.

So, I finally find a clear frequency, and Email my friend to tell him where I am, and I'm calling for him and a contester starts bellering right on my frequency. I say "THE FREQUENCY IS IN USE!!" He says "GO TO THE WARC BANDS. WE ARE HAVING A CONTEST, AND YOU DON'T BELONG HERE!!" I don't know HOW many times I've heard that. And of course I spend the next fifteen minutes hollering at him telling him a thing or 2 about what he said.

I'm with Minton. I think that there should be a rule in the books that no contest and net can be on the warc bands, along with a rule that there can't be anymore nets and contests than what there is right now. And even start to thin some of them out.

I wouldn't mind any of them if they followed the law, and at least ask if the frequency is in use, and if I'm using a frequency that a net would ask if I could move politely instead of starting a net right on my conversation...

[n0nwo]

I should know better, but I did it anyway. I listened on 10.114 for quite a while today and there was no county hunting traffic. So I put out a QRL?

I was promptly answered by CHN control op informing me this is their frequency for their net.

So I asked when the net starts? Basicly their net runs from band opening to band closing and they have exclusive use.

I told that net controller that "you people are as bad as K1MAN for being frequency hogs".

Yes I know that there is plenty of other spectrum to use and I DID qsy and work other stations. But I just can't get mad as hell everytime I run in to this sort of thing.

'No... we are not using the frequency right now, but you cant either. Just in case we want it."

Some one please tell me why this is not illeagle???

In the past I used to run from anywhere from 10.110mhz - 10.115mhz which is the best, and mostactive part of the band. But that is obviously no longer what I can do because I sure would not want to be accused of QRMing these frequency hogs!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Minton