CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] anti-contest petition MMSN

To: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] anti-contest petition MMSN
From: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 09:26:06 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
We just spent time at an ARES meeting discussing what we would do if the
local repeaters all went down in an emergency. We have discussed in the past
alternate frequencies to use if the usual ones were not available. I think
this is (or should be) standard practice with EM personnel - the alternate
if the routine doesn't work.

If it's good enough for ARES, why isn't it good enough for the MMSN people?
They should have several frequencies on several bands planned out in case
the one they have been using isn't available. What happens if the MUF gets
so low that 20 meters is dead?

Maybe these MMSN folks aren't as bright as us ARES folks.

73, Zack W9SZ

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:38 AM, <kr2q@optimum.net> wrote:

> 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@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>