Jeff, KE9V, emailed me this morning with this little tidbit:
Did you notice that the Vermont QSO Party last weekend encouraged FT8/FT4 contacts on the WARC bands? See item #6 from their rule page:
The Vermont QSO Party will include and encourage operation on the WSJT digital modes of FT8, FT4 and others. However, these modes only encode the station’s GRID SQUARE and not state, province or county. For these modes, special rules come into play:
1. Stations can only count once per band for credit on digital modes. That is, if you work a station on both FT8 and RTTY on a particular band, it only counts once.
2. The number of FT8/FT4 multipliers (for Vermont stations) is the number of grid squares worked, divided by 4 and rounded DOWN.
3. The number of FT8/FT4 multipliers (for outside Vermont stations) is the number of grid squares worked in Vermont (maximum of 5).
4. If an FT8/FT4 station does not send its grid square, it can count for QSO credit, but not for grid square credit.
5. Digital contacts on modes not using grid squares (RTTY & PSK-31) will use states and countries as multipliers. Other stations must send their state or province to count for credit.
6. FT8/FT4 contacts can be made on the recognized FT8 frequencies of 10.136/10.140, 18.110/18.104 and 24.920/24.919 MHz upper side band. No other modes are allowed on 30, 17 and 12 meters.
7. A Cabrillo log of FT8/FT4 contacts must be submitted. An ADIF file is NOT acceptable. The FT8/FT4 log can be submitted separately from other modes, or combined. QSO’s not in proper Cabrillo format will not be scored! The WSJTx software will output an ADIF file and a generic log file. You will have to find a method to convert the ADIF file to Cabrillo or indirectly log the FT8/FT4 contacts into logging software.
http://www.ranv.org/vtqso.html
This was noted in the latest Contest Update newsletter but may be worth repeating since it’s yet another way for FTx to kill ham radio. :-)
What do you think, ready for 30 meters to become the digital playground for contests?
My question is what happened to the “gentlemen’s agreement” to leave the WARC band contest-free? I’ve emailed the officers of the Radio Amateurs of Northern Vermont and will post their replies here when I get them.
Here are the email addresses of the club’s contacts if you’d like to do the same:
| President: | Bob KB1FRW |
| VP/Treasurer: | Jim KE1AZ |
| Secretary: | Duane WL7CVD |
| Editor: | George KC1JGM |
| Webmaster: | Mitch W1SJ |
The reason contesting is not allowed on the WARC bands is that contesting takes up considerable bandwidth and these bands have little bandwidth to spare. As such, I warned everyone that only FT8/FT4 is in play on these bands and NOT any other mode. Period.
FT8 takes place on only ONE frequency – 10.136 MHz on 30m, for example. Everybody on FT8 is on this one frequency only.. And on FT8 we cannot do contest exchanges – the software only supports the signal strength in db and grid square. So if a bunch of guys get on during the VT QSO Party how would you know they are “contesting”? You would not. Their exchanges will look like everyone else. If you are monitoring the FT8 frequency, you would have no idea any contest is running. There is absolutely no impact to the band.
I’ve found two things with including FT8/FT4 in the VtQP. First, we have picked up more operators who prefer the digital modes, who wouldn’t have played in the contest. And, as an extension of this, they might try the WARC bands on digital and find they really enjoy those frequencies. Second, there is considerable push-back from traditional contesters (myself included, at times) who say this is not really ham radio and it doesn’t fit, etc. Ultimately, as a ardent promoter of amateur radio, I want to maximize QSO’s and fun. If this can be done by attempting to marry FT8 to other contest modes, then let’s try it as long as it doesn’t wreck other activities on the bands.
So let’s see:
1. Builds more ham radio activity – GREAT – we need that!
2. Does not impact the bands since all FT8 is on one frequency – Also Great. Nothing to complain about here.
As the VT QSO Party contest manager, I carefully watch the activity to make sure we are helping to build activity and not adversely impacting the spectrum. So far, I am pleased with what I have observed. It’s a Win-Win.
I think these points can be debated, but how do you answer other contest organizers who might say, “Hey, look. The VT QSO Party is now allowing contacts made on 30m. Let’s do that, too, but also allow CW and other digital mode contacts?”
No! Only single frequency digital contacts (i.e. FT8/FT4) on the WARC bands because these will not impact spectrum. If anyone proposes any other mode which is multiple frequency (SSB, CW) in nature I would strongly oppose that at this time with the current bandwidths in place. The key is which mode we are talking about because there are large differences.
Sure, you’d oppose it, but even so there’s nothing to stop them. Once you open the door, there’s no telling who will walk in.
Actually there is nothing to stop other people from contesting on the WARC bands now. Even though I’m an engineer and look at the glass half full, I will assume that most contest sponsors will do the right thing and not trash the bands.
My big question is, “What is everyone so afraid of?” The HF ham bands outside of digital are pretty dead these days. At the end of the day, this is a hobby and nobody will die from someone using the wrong frequency. I hope!
I think,,, That Ham radio is just That , radio. The digital medem added to radio is just an addition.
Let radio contesting be just that… Radio.
Why not start digital contesting then the Best of digital could compet against the best of radio.
Sounds like fun to me.
In these days of sub-100 solar flux indices I have observed strong FTx and CW signals while the voice segments are silent. 15 MHz WWV is S9 but 20m voice is silent.
Where will the rest of us go then when this snowballs?
We go to W.A.R.C. bands for the relative quiet and open frequencies.
I’m not again contests and digital modes.
But the contests and such do tie up the bands.
73
Contesting is still contesting whether it is limited to a single frequency or not.
“Where will the rest of us go then when this snowballs?”
Why are hams so doom and gloom? It is more likely that a natural disaster will take us out before FT8 “snowballs” and takes over the 30 meter band. And I know snowballs! We have 12″ of fresh snow due today. Gentlemen, the hobby is NOT healthy. Our average age is well into our 60’s. Demographically, that means that in 20 years, we are all done. THAT is what we should worry about.
Besides being a contester, I am an active promoter and teacher of amateur radio. Trust me, no one cares more about the overall health of amateur radio.
We are talking about making QSO’s on an existing FT8 frequency, 10.136 MHz on 30 meters, for instance, which goes on every day, every hour. You cannot tell if a station is “contesting” or not on FT8. It is the same exchange. Just because some operators happen to share their log with another entity doesn’t make it bad or wrong.
Please, be reasonable in what you argue. If we sit around and pine for the good ole days (whenever that was), we will quietly see our hobby slip away. Embracing new techniques and new ideas should be what we are about. And I’ll be the first to say that this must be done carefully so that we do not upset existing activities.
Are you seriously suggesting that allowing contesting on the WARC bands is a “new technique” or “new idea” and that somehow this is going to change the demographics of the hobby?
This seems like an odd intersection of technology and tradition in which both views have merit. Such contesting as takes place in the sandbox of this digital mode will indeed have no discernible effect on activity on the rest of any given band. But strictly speaking, it is contesting and as such it is proscribed by the traditional gentlemen’s agreement. So I guess the only real question is how much credence the opening the floodgates argument carries. Aside from that, in a practical sense it makes no difference.
I always thought it was a wise move to exclude the WARC bands from contests. I am a sometimes HF contester and enjoy the opportunity to work lots of stations during a weekend. I have plenty of ham friends that really don’t appreciate the bands being full of signals on a contest weekend. These folks often find refuge in the WARC bands.
The idea of just allowing one FT8 frequency (oops, it’s not really one frequency, it is 3 kHz wide) sort of sounds OK. But I am sure the next step will be that someone proposes that it is “only fair” to allow about 3 kHz worth of CW signals on the air for a contest. We promise not to go beyond the 3 kHz, so its just like the FT8 case. Then the phone folks will say “what about us?” Slippery slope, I think. The clean way to protect the WARC bands is simple: no contesting.
It just takes one to start a bad idea. I love working FT8, especially on 30 meters. With a modest set up I have made 152 separate DX entities, a lot of the long haul ones on 30 meters. I have a chance working DX there. So someone, by themselves, decides to break a “gentleman’s” agreement that even gets the IARU’s attention. Wonderful, it only takes one.
And limiting the activity to the regular frequencies. Great idea, thanks for adding to the negative feelings about FT8 already.
I have also heard that some hams consider POTA and SOTA to be contesting and can get upset about SOTA ops using WARC bands. We get intentional QRM very often. 30 has been a great band for me on a summit when there is a CW contest going.
Vermont has made a serious error by allowing contesting on the WARC bands! Breaking years of a gentleman’s agreement is no small act. Contesting brings out the worst of ham radio — excessive splatter, no respect for an occupied frequency, loudest signal commands the frequency, intentional interference, illegal high power. OK, some contesters are courteous, most are careless at best, many are simply bullies. Let’s continue to keep all that off the WARC bands.
It’s ONLY FT8, what are you worried about? I’m worried that contesters see another multiplier in the WARC bands and will include them in the contests for CW and SSB. Vermont says, “Gee fellows, it’s only one frequency.” Other contesters will say, “Gee fellows, it’s only for a weekend.” There is no stopping contesters if you allow contesting on the WARC bands.
Mitch, no matter what color you try to paint this thing you did, it won’t cover up what you did: ignore a widely-known agreement about what goes on in WARC bands.
Change through civil disobedience in amateur radio is not a good idea. Breaking the windows of a house built on order and respect by using FT4/8 as a bat is really not a good idea.
Contesting does not belong on WARC frequencies. It doesn’t matter if it’s not federal law. It doesn’t have to be.
Merits pro or con are not the point. The point is you broke with a tradition unilaterally. You are the bully.
It will snowball. on any given day when there’s a contest try to find a clear frequency. The W.A.R.C. bands our are refuge from the din of contesters.
If you keep crowding the frequencies, where do we go next? The 11-meter band?
Mitch: It takes a gentleman to honor a gentleman’s agreement. Contesters for the most part, are the most selfish segment of the hobby…. IMHO. Follow the money, the big amps and the massive arrays and the smugness and evolution of the no code tech to the higher ranks of this wonderful past time will most likely continue to erode those havens carved out by gentlemen of days gone by.
Trying to get back into the hobby after a very long lay off seems like when the weekend rolls around it is contesting and I unplug the rig and go back to what I was doing when I enjoyed being away from this hobby. The slippery slope is dangerous one, as well as selfish. Are there any gentlemen left on the bands? Note to self, put up 30 meter end fed half wave ASAP. 73, Pat W6SLA
If digital modes for contesting are allowed on WARC, there is absolutely nothing to prevent people from running FT8 on 2 or 3 different sections of 30m, or any other WARC band. I’ve already seen POTA activators using non-standard FT8 frequencies for their activations so that they don’t have to compete for spectrum with the other FT8 users on the “normal” frequencies.
I have been using the WARC frequencies for my HF operations ever since the radio manufacturers included the 12, 17 and 30 meter bands. As a CW aficionado since 1966 the 10 MHz segment has been my refuge. I spoke on commercial radio for a living so SSB was not a thrill.
I realize that I’m late to this conversation, but my take is that getting upset at anything out of my control can only hurt me. Do I hear the SOTA “contests” on the weekends? Sure, but I know in my heart of hearts that WARC frequencies are the friendliest environment for QRP and weak signals. I’ll work them and then move off to a quiet frequency to listen and perhaps call CQ.
Its amazing how many people commenting have missed the point that FT8 and FT4 occupy the same amount of bandwidth from the WARC frequencies with or without a contest.
As a matter of fact, FT8 and FT4 occupy that bandwidth 24x7x365 independently of the number of stations using it.
Its already accounted for, so you might as well use it.
Nobody in Amateur Radio owns a frequency check the regs
Contesting on the warc bands is a dinosaur from the past.
So, would you allow contesting on the WARC bands?
I know this is old but the missed point is that you claim to be only using one frequency. Well the one frequency is the same frequency the non contesters. (everyone else) would have to use.
So effectively you have taken over the entire band in relation to FT-8 operation!