Thanks Marty and Dave: As I pointed out, I don't think the change will have a huge impact in most areas. Additionally, I do recognize that we here in the NW have different uses and needs than much of the rest of the Country, because much of our area is wilderness. Because we (ARRL) publish the 'wilderness protocol' in the ARES Field Resource Manual and on the ARRL Website, (and maybe other places) we should make some note of the WP. Brian has assured me that it was taken into consideration. 73, Jim -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 8:02 AM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:24769] Re: 146.52 I hope this will not prolong the discussion of a settled issue, but to provide some historical background to support Marty's observation: The history of this particular rule is that it was first introduced for the June 1982 VHF QSO Party after an ad hoc committee study. It replaced an earlier rule that limited the amount of time a station could use 146.52 MHz, a compromise approach that satisfied no one. It predates the Wilderness Protocol by quite a bit. I vaguely recall an incident around that time in which a local public service activity in New England -- communications for a walkathon, or something like that -- was disrupted because the organizers had made no provision for using anything other than 146.52 MHz simplex and their low power, local communications were overridden by rather distant mountaintop contest stations running a few hundred watts who, in their defense, couldn't hear the little handhelds. There may have been other examples but that's the only one I remember. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Woll, Marty, N6VI Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:04 PM To: Pace, Jim, K7CEX; 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:24766] Re: 146.52 Jim, thanks for adding your perspective. I was pushing for the elimination of the '52 ban back when Art Goddard was SWD Director. I was told that the Wilderness Protocol was the primary reason for leaving the prohibition in place, although I believe the origin of the prohibition had nothing to do with WP. I believed then, as I do now, that a lost hiker in the mountains calling on 146.520 would have a much greater chance of being heard by a well located, well equipped contest station than they would under other circumstances. If a contester hears a call for help, I cannot imagine ignoring that call. I believe any contest participant would turn his or her focus to the party in distress and use their better-than-usual radio resources to summon aid. If I were stuck in the woods with just a handheld, I would hope it was on a contest weekend , when I had the best chance of being heard. Having conducted significant multi-op, rover and portable operations over the years, I can tell you that the notion of clogging up an FM frequency with contest activity on 2 meters is a misconception. In all our operations, we monitor whatever FM channel is agreed on - usually 146.55 or 58 around here - and put out an occasional call or two. Even here in RF-dense Southern California, those agreed-on frequencies are not all that busy; it is not chaos. ARRL and CQ VHF contests occupy only a few days a year. I don't think we need to add a bunch of qualifiers to the rules; just rely on customary courtesy and good operating practices. The purpose of recommending removal of the '52 ban was not primarily to increase the scores of existing contesters; it was to allow some real-time "outreach" to non-contesters who would otherwise be unaware of some interesting contact possibilities. 73, Marty N6VI -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Northwestern Division Director - Jim K7CEX Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 12:27 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24765] 146.52 All: I haven't had too much pushback here, but I thought I should chime in a bit. The NW Division States are quite aware of the 'wilderness protocol' and do use it, when we are out in the boonies (like driving to the grocery store, or the outhouse) hi hi. Like many of you, I monitor 146.52 when traveling and announce myself as I enter a city or even sometimes when just driving the freeway. It is not often that I get any response, but I still make the announcement. I also monitor when I'm hunting or fishing - even though we have pretty good repeater coverage in Western Washington. While I don't see that the contests are going to have much of an impact in most areas of the Country, I would suggest in drafting any subsequent rules dealing with 146.52 or any other 'traditional' calling frequency that we keep a few things in mind. .The simplex channel, 146.52, has always been a quiet watering hole for conversations during active contests. That will be less possible if there are contests using the channel. .Many hams at home and mobile, monitor the radio, usually 146.52, all the time. A weekend of contest chaos blasting from a normally quiet radio will result in those radios being turned off - and possibly not turned back on. .Summits on the Air (SOTA) activity is picking up here and they make good use of 146.52. NPOTA will, I'm sure, get the same sort of use. .Contest folks NEED a calling channel on VHF two meters. That's easy to fix without cluttering 146.52 - there is a lot more of the 2 meter band than 146.52. .Contests need more activity. Ham Radio needs more activity. A different tweak to the operations would, in my opinion, get more folks on the air. We here, way west of the Hudson, have informally established some protocols on 146.52 that have been pretty useful for us. I would ask that some 'reasonable accommodation' to 146.52 and those of us who use it for other than contesting. 73 and good Hamming Jim Pace, K7CEX ARRL the National Association for Amateur Radio Northwestern Division Director _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv