[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Frequency Conservation

To: "'CQ Contest'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Frequency Conservation
From: "Robert Naumann" <w5ov@w5ov.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:19:32 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
In IV, A. 11, The FCC says:

" 11. Further, based on the record in this proceeding, we are persuaded that
we should authorize more spectrum in the 80 m band for voice communications
than was proposed in the NPRM. Indeed, a number of commenters argue that the
NPRM proposal to increase the amount of spectrum permitted for voice
communications would still not meet the demand for voice communication
spectrum in the HF bands, particularly in the 80 m band.53 As a result, some
commenters request that the 80 m allocation be extended downward to include
3600-4000 kHz,54 3650-4000 kHz,55 or 3675-4000 kHz for voice
communications,56 believing that expanding the band more than the Commission

is justified because the CW band "is grossly underused and represents a huge
waste in spectrum." 57 

Further, the record suggests that additional spectrum for voice
communications would relieve "the overcrowding [amateur operators] are
experiencing,"58 "

I added some spaces to isolate the troublesome quote from W3NP's comments.
This seems rather biased - doesn't it?

The footnote for 57 says: 
"See David J. Humbertson Comments at 1; see also Dale Gagnon Comments at 1;
John Fitzsimmons Comments at 1.

Now, a little research:

W3NP, David J. Humbertson's comments can be found here: 


W5OV observation: Curious how someone who apparently only operates AM is
worried about a "waste in spectrum".

KW1I, Dale Gagnon's comments can be found here:


He says: "I agree with many other commenters that the subband for telegraphy
on this band is too large for the number of users".

W5OV observation: A pattern is developing - he is also a
"spectrum-conscious" AM operator.

W3JN, John Fitzsimmons' comments can be found here:


W5OV observation: Guess what? Another "spectrum-conscious" AM operator!

It is clear that the anti-code initiative is winning the war and is
apparently being fought by AM operators.

It is also apparent that no research was done to verify the comments
received as being valid. The results of my ~15 minutes of research clearly
show that these comments are AM-biased and should have been ignored.

It would take about 5 minutes of listening to these "HI-FI" and AM types of
operators to not only recognize how much spectrum they waste, but also how
devoid of value their operations are. "Does my audio have enough bass in it
today?" ..."Bill, your audio is without question the best on the
air"..."Tell me which way my audio sounds better".

It makes me sick.

Thank you ARRL for guarding my interests!


Bob Naumann W5OV
ARRL Life Member

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>