Band Plans and Sharing During Contests

CQ WW RTTY Contest Director Ed Muns, W0YK, recently wrote a response to someone who was commenting on the activity during the CQ WW RTTY Contest. Ed’s reply is equally true for the CQWW SSB and CW contest weekends so we wanted to share it here with everyone.

Note: The CQ WW rule II states “Observance of established band plans is strongly encouraged.”  Even during times of high activity, we need to share the bands in accordance with the band plans as best we can.

 

What does “the recognized RTTY portions of the bands” mean?  Each country’s telecommunications authority determines what modes can be used in specified portions of the amateur bands.  Contest entries must follow this rule and all other amateur service rules of their country.  Not doing so is grounds for disqualification in this contest.  However, the contest sponsor cannot police thousands of participants in hundreds of entities around the world with their separate diverse amateur service rules.

If you are referring to voluntary band plans, they are even more problematic.  There are hundreds of them, all unenforceable and with many conflicts between them, especially across world regions and countries.  More important, though, is that band plans assume normality.  A major contest is not at all “normal” use of amateur bands.  Outside of RTTY contests and DXpeditions, one is hard-pressed to find a RTTY transmission anywhere on the amateur bands.  Yet, during a major RTTY contest, the number of running stations, spaced out so as not to overlap each other, cannot fit within the “normal” RTTY band plan segments.  (But, still within the country’s amateur service band digital segments specified by its telecommunications regulations.)   I expect all amateurs, contesters and non-contesters, to value the high activity that contesting brings to our amateur bands at discrete times during the year.  This reduces the risk that the amateur service spectrum is reduced in favor of other services.

Here is my personal analogy.  I receive my postal mail at a post office box in my town’s Post Office.  The building is located adjacent to our town plaza which is turned into a farmer’s market every Sunday morning.  During this time, traffic congestion in this area is high, the public road directly at the Post Office is off limits and parking is impossible to find within blocks of the Post Office.  Accordingly, I am essentially denied reasonable access to my mail box every Sunday morning.  I could protest this outrage, or I could be thankful that the farmers market is one of many uses of our public plaza that helps justify its existence.  I appreciate having that area in our town.  It is shared space and since I know the farmers market is always, and only, on Sunday mornings, it is  small matter for me to adjust my life to not expect access to my mail box during that time.  This is a minor manageable personal inconvenience for the value of a town plaza.  I personally enjoy walking my dog there, meeting friends for a chat and attending the Jazz music series held on 10 Wednesday evenings during the summer.

Other similar examples are bicycle road races, distance foot races, parades, funeral processions, music events, political rallies, athletic events, etc.  All these specific one-time temporary events disrupt the “normal” use of our public roadways and subsequent access to certain areas of the community.  The important thing is that the public roadways are being put to lots of passionate use to justify their existence and maintenance.

All amateur interests need to share our common asset of the amateur service band segments.  It is much more efficient to accumulate our various interests and share our limited spectrum space across time slices rather than dedicating sub-segments to the various special interests.  Take the contesting special interest as an example.  If a fixed amount of space were to be allocated to contesting, it would be much too small to meet the activity level during contests.  Worse, most days of the year, the space wouldn’t be used at all, lying completely vacant when other special interests could use it.

73,

Ed W0YK
CQ RTTY Contests Director

CQWW Rules Translated into 14 Languages

We are pleased to announce that the rules translations for the CQ WW DX Contest are now available in 14 languages. You can access any of the languages from http://www.cqww.com/rules.htm

Thanks to the following people for their help with the translations:

Arabic by Ashraf Chaabane, KF5EYY

Bulgarian by Valeri Stefanov, LZ2CJ

Chinese by Dai Dan, BD4WM

French by Jacques Saget, F6BEE

German by Wolfgang Schwarz, DK9VZ

Italian by Stefano Brioschi, IK2QEI

Japanese by Kazunori Watanabe, JK3GAD

Polish by Tom Barbachowski SP5UAF

Portuguese by Marcos Vaz Nogueira, PY2WS

Romanian Andy Ruse, YO3JR and Dan Lucian Rabinca, YO9FNP

Russian by Vladimir Sidarau, VE3IAE

Slovenian by Tine Brajnik, S50A

Spanish by Pedro L. Vadillo, EA4KD

Turkish by Mehmet ADIGUZEL, TA5FA

Translating contest rules is not easy.  We appreciate their time and effort to help promote the CQ WW and contesting to more people around the world. We have tried to make the translations as accurate as possible, but in the event of a dispute, the English version of the rules will be the standard.

Any questions about the rules or translations should be sent  at: https://cqww.com/contact.

CQWW Supports New Cabrillo CERTIFICATE tag

One of the most expensive aspects of operating a contest the size of CQ WW is producing and mailing paper certificates. Participants earn more than 2400 certificates on each CW and SSB. The cost to produce and mail the large size CQ WW certificates is significant. We know that some people enjoy receiving paper certificates and we remain committed to producing them.  However, the CQ WW DX Contest provides electronic certificates in pdf format for everyone that submits an entry; a faster and less costly way to deliver certificates to participants.

The World Wide Radio Operator Foundation (WWROF) recently took over the stewardship and administration of the Cabrillo log submission format. At the request of CQWW (and other contests), they have approved a new header tag that will allow participants to opt out of mailed paper certificates. This gives participants a way to tell us if they prefer going with electronic certificates.

CERTIFICATE: YES | NO
Indicate whether or not you wish to receive, if eligible, a paper certificate sent via postal mail. YES is the default.

If you do not want to receive a paper certificate, simply add this line to the header of your Cabrillo file:

CERTIFICATE: NO

If you want to receive a certificate, do not add the line or use CERTIFICATE: YES. We ask logging software authors to support the new tag with their next release.

If your software does not yet support the CERTIFICATE tag, you can easily add it using a text editor before submitting your log.

Complete information about the Cabrillo tags supported by the CQ WW DX Contest can be found at http://www.cqww.com/cabrillo.htm. Information about the Cabrillo standard is available from the WWROF web site at http://wwrof.org/cabrillo/

CQ WW 2013 Operating Stats

Mark ZL3AB posted the following to the cq-contest mailing list.

I was wondering what the average operating time in the CQ WW 2013 CW and SSB contests were for single operators. But although the operating hours were listed in the results database you could not sort on it.

Therefore I dropped the Single 2013 Operator All Band and Single Op All Band Assisted HP/LP/QRP results into a spreadsheet to figure it out. I left out the single band entrants as I felt it would distort the figures since many would have to stop when the propagation did.

Average hours

        Single Op   Single Op(A)  Overall
CW       17.4        18.1          17.8
SSB      14.7        13.8          14.2

Also 73% of operators operated for less than 24 hours in the CW contest with 79% doing so in the SSB contest. I did a break down on 6 hourly intervals:

CW 2013
Hours     SO     SO(A)     Overall
42-48    2.8%    3.2%       3.0%
36-41.9  4.0%    6.3%       5.0%
30-35.9  6.1%    8.2%       7.0%
24-29.9  11.5%   12.3%      11.8%
18-23.9  17.7%   16.8%      17.3%
12-17.9  20.2%   19.9%      20.1%
6-11.9   23.4%   20.0%      21.9%
0-5.9    14.3%   13.2%      13.8%

SSB 2013
Hours     SO     SO(A)     Overall
42-48    1.6%    2.0%       1.7%
36-41.9  2.4%    4.6%       3.2%
30-35.9  4.9%    6.8%       5.5%
24-29.9  9.3%    10.6%      9.8%
18-23.9  15.2%   15.0%      15.1%
12-17.9  19.7%   19.7%      19.7%
6-11.9   25.7%   23.4%      24.9%
0-5.9    21.2%   18.0%      20.0%

Interestingly there seemed to be no material difference in time operated in each category between single ops and single ops assisted in both contests.

 

Thanks Mark!