Dear Dave,
I just received in today's mail a solicitation for The
Fund for the Defense of Amateur Radio Frequencies. It reminded
me that 32 months ago I wrote you a message (attached) regarding
the lack of mode segmentation on Topband. Nothing has happened
since then despite a survey done on the Topband reflector which
showed an overwhelming majority (~80%) of active operators on 160
are in favor of some form of mode segmentation.
The stock market (one of my other hobbies) has been very
kind to me the past few years and I would like to share my good
fortune with ARRL. Here's my proposition: If the ARRL will take
some leadership in an effort which results in FCC segmentation of
at least 1800-1840 for CW only, I will contribute $10,000 to the
Defense Fund on the date that the FCC ruling becomes effective.
My offer applies ONLY IF ARRL SHOWS LEADERSHIP IN THE ISSUE.
If the FCC should implement 160 mode segmentation only on their own
initiative, my offer does not apply.
I am copying this to the Topband reflector in the hopes that
others may wish to join me in making this challenge. I sincerely
hope you will take action which results in mode segmentation on
Topband...these frequencies need defense too!
73, Bill W4ZV
P.S. Feel free to forward this to your directors if you are interested.
P.P.S. (to the reflector only) This is NOT an invitation to discuss
this
issue on the reflector or with me. It IS an invitation to TAKE ACTION
yourself. If you want to support this effort, contacting your director
(his
call @arrl.org) is a good first step.
Open letter to K1ZZ dated 8 March 1997:
Dear Dave,
I am writing you as a fellow holder of DXCC on 160 and as a
fellow
contester, because I think you well understand the problem I would like
to
describe. Even as I write this on Saturday night, I hear you working
IK6SNQ
on 1830.5!
For the more than 12 years I have been active on 160, the lack
of an
exclusively CW subband has been the root cause of many problems. CW
operators
are in conflict with the SSB stations found below 1840 (some to 1815)
and SSB
contests are an especially severe problem because there is no place for
the CW
operators (DX'ers or otherwise) to hide. Although most of us still try
to act
like gentlemen on this band, the voluntary band plan suggested by ARRL
is not
sufficient to prevent the inevitable conflicts caused by the lack of
subbands.
I understand several petitions have been made to the FCC
previously
but not endorsed by the ARRL. I also understand the current
deregulation
environment within the FCC. However, this is one case where I think a
little
more regulation would be welcomed by all and would result in less
workload
for both of you. If subbands were enacted for the WARC bands, why not
160?
Being a life member of ARRL, I strongly support your efforts on
the
behalf of all of us. Yet it remains a a mystery why the ARRL cannot
show some
leadership on this issue. Surely we are not so intimidated by the
deregulation
environment at the FCC that we cannot propose issues which would benefit
everyone involved (including the FCC and ARRL). If ARRL cannot at least
study
this issue, I frankly question what exactly IS the mission of ARRL? I
personally feel we either need some action or a very good explanation as
to
why not. 160 activity has increased dramatically the past few years and
the
problems caused by the lack of subbands are getting worse and not
better.
I propose that you nominate a committee of Directors and Vice
Directors
to poll your membership and study this issue. I would recommend at
least the
following Directors who are active Topbanders: K0HB, K1KI, K4VX, N4MM,
K5UR and
W0CP. They are probably all very familiar with the problems I
described, as
are you.
I am copying this letter to our 160 reflector
(Topband@contesting.com)
and hope that you may initiate some action and inform all of us using
the reflector. I also encourage our subscribers by way of this open
letter to give their Directors some feedback on the issue. Should you
feel this is an inappropriate issue for the ARRL to pursue, I hope you
will
also share your reasoning and logic with us.
Thank you for your attention and CU on Topband!
73, Bill W4ZV
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
|