Thank you guys for commenting on this Op-Ed thing. I was able to have email
dialogue with Richard Webb, the author of the Op-Ed. I also had a nice
phone conversation with Dave Sumner. Here's the gist:
A number of you guys have come to the same conclusion I am drawing from my
conversation with Richard. His agenda was *really* trying to help out the
maritime net on 20 meters. I think he made his QST piece sound more general
because he felt like it would rally more support than just the 14.300 users.
K1MK sleuthed out another likely piece to the puzzle:
"NOTE - On Saturdays, the Maritime Mobile Service Network does not begin
until 1300 Eastern Time. The Network has **donated** 1 hour to the USCG
Amateur Radio Net..."
This quote (sans asterisks) can be found here:
http://www.mmsn.org/ncs/schedule.html
I am pretty confident in my conclusion. I didn't ask Richard point blank
because I wouldn't trust his response, but deep down inside, I think
Richard's biggest concern was that some unfortunate boater would lose his
life because of a radio contest. I believe He feels he is doing the noble
thing by "trying to get some action."
I called Dave at the ARRL for a reality check. How big a deal is the
maritime thing? Richard made it sound like 14.300 was some maritimers' only
lifeline in case there was an emergency. Dave felt the boaters' case was
optimistically overstated, and it was exacerbated by the fact that SOME
boaters rely TOO heavily on 14.300. (But you guys knew this already).
Dave says there are dedicated boater emergency frequencies scattered
throughout the spectrum.
Dave also reminded me that Op-Ed is where people who disagree with the ARRL
get their chance to state their case in QST, and he assured me that the ARRL
is firmly opposed to any idea of allocating subbands for various kinds of
activities.
In subsequent email with Richard, Richard feels that the precedent for what
he is suggesting is that spectrum is set aside in this way on VHF for
weak-signal work.
I asked Dave about this, and he felt it was not a good comparison.
Dave also understands, as do virtually all people who commented on it here,
that in the case of an emergency situation any contester would either shut
up and get out of the way, or assist in the communication. I did not have
to remind Dave that we have on occasion shut down contests because of
communications emergencies - he brought it up first. Believe me, those
actions on our part in past years will continue to reward us for a long time
still - the ARRL has not forgotten the basic fact that contesters have an
excellent history of cooperation.
(We should remember this the next time an opportunity presents itself -OT)
I asked about the possibility of putting language in the ARRL contest rules
to define what should happen in case of a communications emergency. Dave
said they don't want to try that because different people would define a
"communications
emergency" differently. To some boaters, not being able to phone home could
be a "communications emergency." Then you're stuck with adjudicating the
complaint, yada. Self policing is still the way to go.
Finally I asked Dave about Ward et al's idea of getting the FCC to issue a
Special Temporary Authorization during contests. Dave cited two problems
with this. First, any extra spectrum would simply get filled with
contesters, having the unintended result. Second, with the FCC, you choose
your requests carefully. Everything comes at a price, and there are much
bigger fish to fry than getting contesters more space.
Dave and I agreed that what it comes down to is what many of you have also
said in your comments: It is really a matter of non-contesters not being
willing to be flexible. For the record, he brought it up, I didn't put the
words in his mouth. On the reflector here, we have gone around and around
on this and there is no question but that the complainers are in a rut they
don't want have to exert themselves to get out of.
Should we reply? How do we respond? He mentioned that a short 300
word-or-less bit to ARRL will have a better chance of getting in QST under
"Correspondence" OpEd is a highly contested spot (so to speak).
And, he said "you DO know that I don't decide what gets into QST, right?"
:)
Thanks Dave. I don't think this is going to amount to anything. Although
contesters are being very defensive at the moment, I say let it blow over.
Mark, N5OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!
http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|