[CQ-Contest] prejudicial language

[Joe Subich, K4IK]

> 
> KR6X wrote:
> 
> "I am appalled with what I read in the committee comments.  Contesting,
> contests, and contesters do not "disrupt" the bands, they utilize the
> bands for the good of the public and amateur radio while meeting the
> primary objectives of the amateur radio services to a degree with
> which no other activity can compare.  The suggestions of the
> committee, clearly expressing a preference against contest operation,
> are nonetheless in the worst interests of the amateur radio service."
> 

Which is exactly why the committee did not go far enough.  The ARRL 
Board simply lacks the guts to ask the FCC to establish a the same 
reasonable regulatory separation between wideband and narrow band modes 
that exist on every other amateur allocation below 30 MHz. 

The committee's work will be sham without a firm regulatory backing ... 
Riley's stance that anyone who fails to observe the bandplan is in 
violation of rules requiring "good amateur practice" notwithstanding.  
As I have maintained for more than fifteen years, the Commission should 
put a regulatory fence at 1855 ... such a division leaves plenty of room 
for both wide and narrow modes (other than for those too lazy to do the 
necessary antenna work).  Even during SSB contests the very top end of 
the band is nearly unused.



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