[CQ-Contest] Feb 04 QST op-ed article

[Joe Subich, K4IK]

Patrick, 

> Sorry Mike, but that is an inflammatory statement that is
> without merit in many cases. Are some of those folks
> wealthy? Sure, however many others are just "regular" folks
> who busted their butts in hourly wage factory type jobs,
> saved their pennies and managed to buy a small boat (often
> under 30 ft. in length) and are out there seeing the world
> on a shoe string. I personally know several who are doing so
> with budgets that do not exceed $10,000 a year total,
> meaning food, boat maintenance, port fees, etc. Here in the
> US at least that's hardly considered "wealthy". As a result
> of such budget limitations those small boats do not enjoy
> the "commercial comms" you refer to. Additionally, the
> operators are in fact Hams and have the same rights to the
> freq.'s that we in the contest community do. 

You're off base ... nobody cares a bit about the financial 
status of the yachtsmen but their activities are certainly 
quasi-commercial and have NO BUSINESS on amateur frequencies. 
If there is an emergency (e.g., taking on water, capsize, 
etc.), all bets are off.  However, to be ordering supplies, 
scheduling port visits, updating schedules, receiving and 
sending mail, getting news, weather forecasts or any other 
day to day activity they should be using commercial services.  
If they can't afford the commercial services, do like "normal 
people" and go without. 

I suspect ANY contester, even the biggest of the multi-multi 
stations would voluntarily relinquish the frequency in the 
face of an emergency (MAYDAY).  Contesters have avoided 
frequencies designated by the FCC under communications 
emergencies domestically and by request of non-US Amateur 
societies (flood relief, earthquake relief, etc.) for years.  
However, to demand a 5 KHz "clear channel" 24 x 7 x 365 for 
non-emergency, quasi-commercial traffic is not in the spirit
of amateur radio.  

> I am NOT supporting the proposal made by the QST author nor
> lining up on the anti-contest side of this argument but as
> others have pointed out inflammatory statements of any kind
> ("regular" folks against the "wealthy" in this case) don't
> help the debate but only serve to make us look unreasonable.

This isn't a case of inflammatory statements (other than Mike's 
reference to the "wealthy") ... this is a long overdue instance 
of pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. 

73, 

   ... Joe, K4IK