[CQ-Contest] Op-Ed

[Grillo's]

It was during the 1973 ARRL DX contest that I intercepted an emergency message from Guatemala and started a chain of events I am proud to say the contest fraternity honored by their maintaining open the emergency frequency we spontaneously created in the middle of the 20 meter phone band.  It got front page coverage in the LA times because Richard Nixon had a hand in authorizing shipment of a rare medicine via Travis Air Force Base support to the ailing victim who survived the incident.

The article is framed and is posted in my shack as a continuing reminder of how important our skills can be in an emergency.

Needless to say, my score did suffer that year!

73 to all,
Pete
W0RTT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Beckwith" <mark at concertart.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:02 AM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Op-Ed


> 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 at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>