[CQ-Contest] Open letter to K1ZZ, ARRL Executive VP

[Bill Tippett]

Hello Contesters!

        Here is a copy of a letter I sent to Dave K1ZZ regarding the
need for subbands on 160.  If you believe this is a good idea, please
contact your Division Directors and tell them so.  Their next meeting
is in July and nothing will happen unless they hear from YOU.  You can
find their addresses including E-mail on page 10 of March QST.  Squeaky  
wheels do get greased so please help make this one squeak!

                                        73,  Bill  W4ZV

(Copy of message to K1ZZ at arrl.org):

Dear Dave,

        I am writing you as a fellow holder of DXCC on 160 and as a fellow
contester, because I think you well understand the problem I would like to
describe.  Even as I write this on Saturday night, I hear you working IK6SNQ
on 1830.5! 

        For the more than 12 years I have been active on 160, the lack of an
exclusively CW subband has been the root cause of many problems.  CW operators
are in conflict with the SSB stations found below 1840 (some to 1815) and SSB
contests are an especially severe problem because there is no place for the CW
operators (DX'ers or otherwise) to hide.  Although most of us still try to act
like gentlemen on this band, the voluntary band plan suggested by ARRL is not
sufficient to prevent the inevitable conflicts caused by the lack of subbands.

        I understand several petitions have been made to the FCC previously
but not endorsed by the ARRL.  I also understand the current deregulation
environment within the FCC.  However, this is one case where I think a little
more regulation would be welcomed by all and would result in less workload
for both of you.  If subbands were enacted for the WARC bands, why not 160?

        Being a life member of ARRL, I strongly support your efforts on the
behalf of all of us.  Yet it remains a a mystery why the ARRL cannot show some
leadership on this issue.  Surely we are not so intimidated by the deregulation
environment at the FCC that we cannot propose issues which would benefit
everyone involved (including the FCC and ARRL).  If ARRL cannot at least study
this issue, I frankly question what exactly IS the mission of ARRL?  I 
personally feel we either need some action or a very good explanation as to
why not.  160 activity has increased dramatically the past few years and the 
problems caused by the lack of subbands are getting worse and not better.

        I propose that you nominate a committee of Directors and Vice Directors
to poll your membership and study this issue.  I would recommend at least the
following Directors who are active Topbanders: K0HB, K1KI, K4VX, N4MM, K5UR and
W0CP.  They are probably all very familiar with the problems I described, as
are you.  

        I am copying this letter to our 160 reflector (Topband at contesting.com)
and hope that you may initiate some action and inform all of us using
the reflector.  I also encourage our subscribers by way of this open
letter to give their Directors some feedback on the issue.  Should you
feel this is an inappropriate issue for the ARRL to pursue, I hope you will
also share your reasoning and logic with us.

        Thank you for your attention and CU on Topband!

                                                        73,  Bill  W4ZV
                                                             btippett at ctc.net


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com