[SECC] Stop policemen on 160 SSB

[Jeffrey Clarke]

Tom,

 The only time I have been hassassed by "policeman" is if I have 
transmitted near the DX window. Other than that I have not be 
harassed anywhere else. It looks like this year during the CQWW 160 SSB
anyone who transmitted below 1843 got some harassment.

Also, I think there are more people that oppose the petition then you
think. W4ZV will not let any comments that don't agree with his
opinions on the top band reflector. Is that really fair ???
A petition that has only 500 supporters out of the whole amateur
population of the US does seem very much to me....

           73's  Jeff






--- Tom Rauch <w8ji@akorn.net> wrote:
> I'm glad I'm staying off 160 this weekend, except for a morning 
> sked! SSB contests always seem to bring out the worst in 
> everyone.
> 
> Since there is such a tendency to point fingers and lump people 
> into groups, I want to be very clear I have not made any comments 
> to people on the air this weekend about the bandplan or where they 
> are operating. 
> 
> All that aside, I think you may want to know how the statistics look:
>  
> >   During the past 25 years I have operated contests on 160 
> meters this
> > has never been a problem until now. This problem exists 
> because of a
> 
> Not true. It has always been a problem, more so as activity 
> increases. It has actually gone so far as to involve physical threats
> 
> against people in the past.
> 
> > small group of amateurs who want to have a prime section of the 
> band
> > to themselves to work DX on CW. We all know who those 
> stations are and
> > we have them to thank for this mess.....
> > 
> >                     73's KU8E/LID
> 
> In the response to the FCC petition there were about 520 
> comments filed in 30 days. 
> 
> Excluding multiple responses from individuals, there were about 
> 500 comments filed. This was a very large response as FCC 
> comments go...showing this is a hot issue. 
> 
> Of those comments, only about 80 or so were against a formal 
> year-around rule. 
> 
> Of those 80 or so objections, I found only a few objections based in 
> some part on contests. As a matter of fact, there were nearly as 
> many objections AGAINST the proposed rulemaking by people who 
> thought it favored contests as there were comments AGAINST the 
> proposed rule because they thought it hurt contests! Think about 
> that one a while!!! Anyone who wants a narrow mode area just can 
> win because of contests!
> 
> Of the group in favor of the rule, I counted about 100 serious and 
> casual DX'ers. Most favorable comments were from operators I 
> neither remember from contests or hearing in DX pileups.
> 
> It seems to me some of us are blaming Bill and Jeff for what the 
> majority of  operators on 160 actually want.
> 
> The problem really isn't with DX or with this contest, it is with 
> people who either don't know any better or those who care less if 
> they behave properly. What I do, like most people, is just make it a 
> point to NOT work anyone I hear operating at any time below 1840 
> and I do work their competitors who are behaving.
> 
> That's an effective way of handling the problem. As long as they 
> know people are doing that.
> 73, Tom W8JI
> W8JI@contesting.com 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com

--
SECC on the Web:          http://secc.contesting.com/
Submissions:              secc@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  secc-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-secc@contesting.com