[CQ-Contest] anti-contest petition MMSN

[David Kopacz]

I am in agreement. I read their petition several times and it just rubs
me wrong.

I don't particularly care for net operations myself; however, I believe
everyone has a right to use amateur radio in the legal manner that suits
them. I am not, however, in favor of any single group claiming a
frequency for their exclusive use.

Their petition leaves many unanswered questions.

1) Outside of amateur radio operators, who uses this frequency (net) for
emergency communications? Do commercial maritime ships use this
frequency for emergency communications?
2) How is the frequency distributed to maritime ships for emergency use?
3) Why do the MMSN amateur operators think they have the right to "guard
the frequency"? Are they not familiar with FCC and Internationals laws
regarding the use of amateur bands?
4) If the MMSN is concerned about contesting, why don't they move the
net to a WARC band, such as 17 meters, where no contests take place?
5) If the implications of an emergency are so important to the NET
controllers, why is the NET not manned 24 hours a day?

The MMSN states "The MMSN strongly supports all forms of amateur radio
operations, including contesting. We feel that every amateur radio
operator should be permitted to participate in whatever aspect of the
hobby they choose."

What they mean but don't state is "We feel that every amateur radio
operator should be permitted to participate in whatever aspect of the
hobby they choose...as long as it isn't on our frequency"

The MMSN states "This seriously impairs the nets ability to hear
stations calling the net to such a degree that, should a ship encounter
trouble at sea and require assistance, it may not be heard due to the
interference."

One must wonder, what kind of antennas do they use? Isn't it more likely
that in the event of an emergency, one of the many contest stations
operating on or near the MMSN frequency would be more likely to hear the
distress call than one of their NET police "guarding the frequency"?

The MMSN states "We proposed that they establish a range of frequencies
in which their SSB contest would operate." The contest committees have
already done this. The range includes the NET's frequency.

The MMSN states "Why do SSB contests require the entire phone band, to
the exclusion of all else?" Notice how they are unconcerned about the CW
bands? Perhaps they should consider using CW during the SSB contests,
after all, CW is a more reliable means of communications during poor
conditions. Another important fact to note is that the MAJORITY of
people using the band during a contest are contesters, even if you
compare a contest day with a non contest day, the MAJORITY of total
operators using a phone band during any day of the year are contesters.
This would suggest that MOST people prefer to use the band for
contesting. 

My last statement, and perhaps most important, is the fact that if this
MMSN frequency is ever established as a "contest free frequency", and
ANY specific bandwidth limitations are established on either side of the
net frequency, it will establish a precedent for EVERY other NET
operation in existence that will have long lasting implications to
amateur radio in general, not just contesting.

Personally, I doubt many commercial ships would use this NET as their
first means of communications in the event of a "disaster at sea, a
medical emergency, an act of piracy or a natural disaster". The question
is, how many non commercial and NON AMATEUR, maritime ships use this NET
as their primary means of emergency communications and how difficult
would it be to inform them of a new frequency should 18Mhz be determined
as a better location for the NET.

I am 100% confident that most contesters would stop their contest
activities and respond in the event they heard a distress call on their
frequency. I know I sure as heck would!

I think it is far more reasonable to ask the contest sponsors to publish
the frequencies used for emergency operations and ask contesters to
agree to either handle emergency traffic in the event of an emergency or
clear the frequency than it is to ask us to maintain an "interference
free zone" around the frequency.

I am all for emergency traffic handling on amateur bands, but I am
strongly opposed to setting a precedent for ANY NET to own a frequency.
For more than 35 years I have seen NET controllers and their "members"
cause more deliberate and intentional interference to people on or near
their NET frequencies than I have ever seen from contesters. This
includes people who were legally and legitimately using a frequency
prior to the NET's schedule time of operation.

The MMSN and other NET controllers need to read the rules and
regulations governing their licenses!

David ~ KY1V


-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of kr2q at optimum.net
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:39 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] anti-contest petition MMSN

I did not know about this.  Even more, look at their home page:
http://www.mmsn.org/

The petition "background" is amazing to me.  I quote:
"The Maritime Mobile Service Net (MMSN) operates on 14300.0 KHz, 365
days a year, from 12
noon until 10 PM Eastern time. "

So they effectively own this QRG for 10 hours per day, every day?  And
you have to just
love the precision: "decimal zero."  :-)

Additionally, they claim massive support (TIC): "This was the wish of
all nearly 100 amateurs attending the GAREC meeting. "

Wow...100 of them, huh?  Let's see, if we add up the ops at the top 10
M/M's...that would be...
oh, more than 100.  Not to mention the ten of thousands of contest
participants nor the 
>5000 entrants (SSB CQWW).

They have a petition? We should too.  Any volunteers?

I'm all in favor of emergency ops taking priority...but only when there
is an emergency.  Just
how many lives have been lost because their NET heard contesters
actually contesting that
prevented them from "doing their thing?"

The thing that further gets me, is that they think that we are somehow
focusing on them;
I guess they are unable to actually the band beyond their own net QRG.

As far as I know, nobody should have exclusive rights to any QRG, never
mind for
"365 days a year, from 12 noon until 10 PM"

What brass!

de Doug KR2Q
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest