The AM Forum
July 24, 2024, 05:16:24 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 9 [10] 11 ... 29   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.  (Read 440548 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #225 on: November 09, 2007, 09:40:32 AM »

Steve, you know that correct amateur practice only includes dull conversations peppered with HI, HI and FB. Anything else, especially if it resembles a normal conversation, is strictly forbidden.
Logged
Todd, KA1KAQ
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4244


AMbassador


« Reply #226 on: November 09, 2007, 10:22:14 AM »

Steve, you know that correct amateur practice only includes dull conversations peppered with HI, HI and FB. Anything else, especially if it resembles a normal conversation, is strictly forbidden.

Except yelling CQ CORNTEST!! This is strongly supported and even encouraged by the League. Wouldn't surprise me if contesters make up the largest part of membership these days. After all, plenty of publicity in QST or online, and all kinds of shiny ads for the new Yaecomewood super rigs. Any real contester needs at least 5.  Roll Eyes

Strange thing is, I don't remember contesting being anything like what it is today, back in the 70s when I first started listening. Folks didn't seem to despise it like they do now, and the majority of ops seemed more concerned with reasonable operating practices rather than ego. I used to enjoy Field Day.

You wanna regulate something that negatively impacts every mode and every country with access to the spectrum? Regulate contesting. Unlike AM, ESSB or other modes that impact a few frequencies at any given time, contesting wipes out entire bands or large portions, preventing anyone but those who contest from using them. And it's completely intentional. How sensible is that? It would bring far greater harmony than any mode-specific bandwidth regulation.  Grin

 
Logged

known as The Voice of Vermont in a previous life
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #227 on: November 09, 2007, 10:55:16 AM »


A friend reminded me the "The Radio Handbook for Amateurs and Experimenters", 1936 edition, ("West Coast Handbook") contains a paragraph that seems to speak to the difficulties we are having with the ARRL of late...  note the "loyalty" part.

- - - - - - - -
  Beginning with theory, only such matter is treated
as will be of practical use. No space is wasted on
matters of communication, traffic handling or to the
preaching of gospels of loyalty, to whomsoever the
loyalty is to be pledged, for the publishers of this
book are of another belief. They hold that it is the
solemn duty of a publisher to be loyal to his reader,
not for the reader to be loyal to the publisher.
- - - - - - - -

Interesting...

Steve WD8DAS

Logged
Todd, KA1KAQ
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4244


AMbassador


« Reply #228 on: November 09, 2007, 11:17:53 AM »


Absolutely. The League was created to serve the amateur community, but now responds only to its members (they've used this with me many times as a reason [excuse] for becoming a member again). Generally speaking, numbers would dictate that current members remain so because they are of similar minds. As for the approximately 80% of amateurs who are not members, well....

Logged

known as The Voice of Vermont in a previous life
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #229 on: November 09, 2007, 01:16:57 PM »

Publisher to be loyal to the reader ?
Gad, that sure would require a change of thinking on their part.

I wonder what went into the thinking behind Editors & Publishers for that paragraph, worded in such a deliberate fashion.

Todd they won't even respond to their subscribers, I don't know where you got that idea.



Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #230 on: November 09, 2007, 01:37:03 PM »

Actually, Pete, yes, I have had conversations with nearly all the Region 2 reps that took part in the development of the revised band plan, and this came about without any documentation nor substantiation of any problems.

It was prompted by two things, and I suggest that you can make the calls yourself to confirm:

1. Paul Rinaldo expressing vague concerns about people running wider than 2.7Kc

2. Using the Region 1 IARU band plan as a basis for Region 2.

I wonder which of the two took precedence since some countries in Region 2 already have bandwidth limitations. Maybe it's a good thing they didn't use the Region 3 band plan as a basis.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #231 on: November 09, 2007, 01:44:17 PM »

Except yelling CQ CORNTEST!! This is strongly supported and even encouraged by the League. Wouldn't surprise me if contesters make up the largest part of membership these days. After all, plenty of publicity in QST or online, and all kinds of shiny ads for the new Yaecomewood super rigs. Any real contester needs at least 5.  Roll Eyes

Darn: I only have 4 Grin

Quote
You wanna regulate something that negatively impacts every mode and every country with access to the spectrum? Regulate contesting. Unlike AM, ESSB or other modes that impact a few frequencies at any given time, contesting wipes out entire bands or large portions, preventing anyone but those who contest from using them. And it's completely intentional. How sensible is that? It would bring far greater harmony than any mode-specific bandwidth regulation.  Grin

World-wide contest frequency regulation; now there's a stretch; would probably require all amateurs in the world to have the same frequency allocations which they don't now have.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #232 on: November 09, 2007, 03:41:01 PM »

Quote
World-wide contest frequency regulation; now there's a stretch; would probably require all amateurs in the world to have the same frequency allocations which they don't now have.


No stretch. It would effectively end contests, which is the point. Cheesy
Logged
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4611



« Reply #233 on: November 09, 2007, 07:11:24 PM »

Well, I received a response, if not quite an answer.  My response to his response is first:

Bill, thanks for the note.  If it the case that Division Directors ONLY
represent ARRL members to HQ, I request that this be clarified on the ARRL
website which states:

A Director's function is principally policymaking at the highest level. Each
division's Director and Vice Director represent their Division on ARRL
policy matters. If you have a question or comment about League policies,
contact your representatives at the addresses shown below.

This statement does not differentiate between members and non-members.

I take note of the unhelpful attitude and suggest that, instead of offering
me free repeater directories or antenna books to renew, that perhaps a more
conciliatory tone amongst the directors to the amateur population
(regardless of whether they may be members or not) might be a better PR tool
in garnering members who have dropped out for one reason or another.

My question remains:  If the IARU-2 proposal is essentially unenforceable,
why the support from ARRL as it is completely contrary to US regs as well in
addition to being severely inadequate with regard to any number of modes of
operation.

Best 73s - John/W3JN


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Edgar"
To: "'w3jn'"
Cc: <w9gig@arrl.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:28 PM
Subject: RE: A question, if I may...


> Hi John,
>
> I'd like to correct a misunderstanding in your note.  ARRL Division
> Directors are representatives of ARRL Members in their division on the
> ARRL
> Board.  My "job" is representing ARRL members within the Atlantic
> Division.
>
>
> Information that I have is that the IARU Region 2 band plan is not
> enforceable in the US as it is the FCC that governs the bands in the US.3
>
> I am not aware of any plan to eliminate or reduce space available for AM
> and
> quite frankly, I don't see the ARRL Board supporting the elimination or
> reduction of space for AM.
>
> - Bill N3LLR
>
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
W2INR
Radio Syracuse
Founding
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1149

Syracuse Radio W2INR


WWW
« Reply #234 on: November 09, 2007, 08:15:34 PM »

I'm confused.

When the ARRL speaks they represent the entire amateur radio community but when spoken to or asked to explain something they only represent the members? Geez, No wonder why they only have about 20% of the hams in this country supporting them.

So the next time they put something in writing I hope they are clear that they are only representing their members not the ham radio community. Anything other than that would be fraud or misrepresentation at the least wouldn't it?

Signed -
Just another ignorant ham

Logged

G - The INR


Amateur Weather Station KNYSYRAC64
Creator - owner - AMfone.net - 2001 - 2010
Founding Member - NEAR-Fest
SWLR-RNŲ54
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #235 on: November 09, 2007, 09:07:08 PM »

ARRL General Information page:
ARRL is the national membership association for Amateur Radio operators.

Under ARRL By-Laws:
Number 17:
Each director shall keep himself informed as to conditions and activities in his territorial division and as to the needs and desires of the members therein in order that he may faithfully and intelligently represent the true interests of such members.

Atlantic Division web site home page:
To represent and to be a resource point for the members of the ARRL in the Atlantic Division.

IARU:
At the IARU, there is one representative for each country or territory. For the U.S., ARRL is the representative at the IARU. So, by default, since there is only one representative per country, the ARRL represents all U. S. amateurs at the IARU.

-----------------
I am not ignorant to believe that there have been no embellishments to most of the above statements at times. Likewise, I am also not that ignorant to not believe that some people may sometimes perceived themselves as being a spokesperson for any special interest group.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #236 on: November 09, 2007, 11:03:04 PM »


I just received a further apology and clarification from the ARRL Central Division Director...

- - - - - - - - -

9 NOV 2007 - 1505 CDT

Steven B. Johnston, WD8DAS

Dear Mr. Johnston,

Thank you for writing to me twice about the recently approved IARU Region 2
Band Plan.  I have been slow in responding to your messages because of
coincidental bad timing.  Your two emails and a very few others (current
total of 24) on this issue, along with approximately 300 other unrelated
emails arrived during time period when I was planning for and recovering
from a minor outpatient surgical procedure the past two weeks.  I mention
this only to explain my slow response.

Also, when a given issue appears to be generating some controversy, I like
to wait until I have a reasonable reading on the issue and the emails
I have received.  For routine ARRL items, I try to respond within 48
hours, if I am
at home.  Now to get down to business...

I admit I should have used neutral, less inflammatory words in my
last email posting to the entire Central Division and for this
apologize to you.
However, I stand by the content of my message because:

1. The Region 2 IARU band plan is only advisory and has no effect on our
    current U.S. Amateur Radio Service HF band plan.  The primary intent of
    this document is to provide guidance to Region 2 amateur radio societies
    in countries that have little or nothing in the way of a band plan.  How
    hams in other parts of the world operate effect us and vice versa.  And
    regardless of your or my personal views on band plans, we would have
    chaos without band plan regulations.

2. There are hams in the U.S. (and other parts of the world) who fear any
    real or perceived change in the status quo.  Regardless of my poor
    description of these people, it does not change the fact that they exist
    and that a very few of them are very quick to publicly take offense.
    Those who fall into this category seldom accept all the facts about the
    issue, or issues that have caused them to speak out.  At best, they cherry
    pick the facts that support their viewpoint.  The phrase in my mind that
    best describes this situation is, "Don't confuse me with the facts because
    my mind is already made up."

The people I described in #2 certainly have the right to speak out
and I was wrong in my choice of descriptive words in my last division
email posting.

But I wish individuals who accept at face value what is being said by
these people would do their own independent fact-checking.  I'm
skeptical about a
lot of what is said and published about controversial issues, both
within and outside of amateur radio, until I have done my own
homework.  My wife says I
am too suspicious, but this characteristic contributed to my
longevity as a military and then as a civilian professional
pilot.  And in retirement, it's still my frame of reference.

This skepticism first had me opposing regulation by bandwidth when it
gained serious consideration by the ARRL board.  It took me about a
year to finally understand the rationale for it and to then make sure
that no existing HF
users would be shut out in the proposal.

The concept of regulation by bandwidth was developed via informal FCC-ARRL
staff discussions over several years before I arrived on the ARRL board in
2001.  When (orthogonal?) modulation systems started showing up that
legally allow wide-band signals in narrow (non-voice) HF sub-bands,
work on a band- width regulation proposal was formalized by board
resolution about 18 months after my arrival.  I believe Winlink 2000
is the first operating mode to use this modulation system.

With the withdrawal of the ARRL's regulation by bandwidth proposal
this past February, this situation will get worse.  The only real
impediment to further Winlink 2000 use is the very high cost of the
proprietary modem.  Eventually, this cost will come down.  I'm not
opposed to any operating mode including Winlink 2000.  But I'm
opposed to it's use in our narrow-band sub-bands.
Under our current Part 97 Regulations, it is legal there.

I seriously doubt if another regulation by bandwidth proposal will be put
forth by the ARRL board in the near future.  We failed to educate the
U.S. amateur radio community about the history of and rationale for
our first proposal, and to make sure nearly everyone understood how
it would work.  The ARRL board of directors has to do it's homework
if we want to have regulation by bandwidth accepted by the U.S.
amateur radio community.

I support amateur radio HF regulation by bandwidth.  However, I will
not support an effort to rush another proposal to the FCC.  I have no idea how
long this educational process will take.  But I currently believe
anything shorter than two years from 1 JAN 2008 will fail.

- George R. Isely, W9GIG
   ARRL Central Div. Director
   St. Charles, IL

   w9gig@arrl.org


- - - - - - - - -



Logged
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #237 on: November 09, 2007, 11:52:46 PM »


Mr Isely -

Thank you for your message and apology.  I hope you are feeling better...

I must continue to disagree with your contention that IARU Region 2 bandplan does not apply to the United States, and is not important to us.   The first paragraph of the plan itself defines its purpose:  Member Societies (such as ARRL) are to work for its incorporation into authority (such as FCC) regulations.   And did not ARRL vote in support of that wording?   So I must conclude that the ARRL must support the eventual incorporation of this plan into the FCC rules.  So it is important, after all...

If it is really meaningless to U.S. amateurs, as you contend, then why do you support it, and hope that it will help us deal with new digital modes?   Why is ARRL spending thousands of dollars to attend the IARU meetings and participate in the drafting of these changes, if it is of no consequence to us?

ARRL represents our country in the IARU, so as a member of ARRL I thought I would have a voice in this process, or at least have been informed.  Clearly I was wrong.   It was done behind the scenes without consulting the membership in any way, and member efforts to to discuss the matter have been viewed as ignorant interference. 

As far as I can discern, the ARRL not only doesn't care about the members' views on this issue, the League officials are deliberately trying to avoid the discussion.  I've not seen any announcement of the IARU Region 2 bandplan changes in QST, on the ARRL website, the ARRL-Letter, or elsewhere.  I've not seen any mention of the role ARRL is taking in this policy process either.   

In your message you stated that we needn't expect a further attempt by the ARRL to get bandwidth controls into FCC rules for at least two years - not until the League has had a chance to "educate" the members and other amateurs on the matter.

Mr. Isley, I think you're a bit confused as to the role of the League, and that of a Director.  Have you read the Articles of Association and By-Laws?    Shouldn't the views of the members be your first priority in the making of policy, rather than the last?  Or do you really think that you and the League officials are to set the course and we just have to follow along, sometimes with a bit of "education" to set us straight?

Whatever happened to the slogan "Of, by, and for the amateur?

Steve WD8DAS

Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #238 on: November 10, 2007, 12:14:15 AM »


...As far as I can discern, the ARRL not only doesn't care about the members' views on this issue, the League officials are deliberately trying to avoid the discussion.  I've not seen any announcement of the IARU Region 2 bandplan changes in QST, on the ARRL website, the ARRL-Letter, or elsewhere.  I've not seen any mention of the role ARRL is taking in this policy process either.   

Steve WD8DAS

ARRL Letter, September 21, 2007:
The Conference next received the report of Committee B/C, a combined
technical and operational committee dealing with both HF and VHF/UHF
matters. This committee was chaired by Ramon Santoyo, XE1KK, of Mexico
City, Mexico; the ARRL's Rinaldo, served as secretary. The Plenary
adopted all of the Committee's recommendations, including: A new Region
2 band plan for 160-10 meters was adopted, effective January 1, 2008.
The new plan is modeled on one adopted previously by IARU Region 1, with
regional differences taken into account;
steps were taken to try to
reduce interference to national emergency Nets, including establishing
an inventory of such Nets and calling their importance to the attention
of the radio amateur community; and an IARU Region 2 Diploma was
approved, with some details remaining to be worked out by the Executive
Committee.

NOTE: The ARRL Letter now distributes to more than 66,000 ARRL members each Friday
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #239 on: November 10, 2007, 12:18:57 AM »


Interesting... I double-checked - I did not receive that ARRL Letter, and it did not turn up back when I searched the ARRL website for mentions of this subject.  I'm glad to see this... but note that it is after the fact, not before.  Members had no opportunity to voice any opinion before it was adopted. 

Steve WD8DAS

Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #240 on: November 10, 2007, 12:24:26 AM »


Interesting... I double-checked - I did not receive that ARRL Letter, and it did not turn up back when I searched the ARRL website for mentions of this subject.  I'm glad to see this... but note that it is after the fact, not before.  Members had no opportunity to voice any opinion before it was adopted. 

Steve WD8DAS



Even if they did, ARRL has one vote. If they had the opportunity to poll every member, and every member said no, and the ARRL said no in the voting process, the revised band plan still would have been approved. One nay vote wasn't going to kill this plan.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4611



« Reply #241 on: November 10, 2007, 07:41:47 AM »

C'mon, Pete, you really can't be serious if your implication is that because the ARRL has but one vote, they have to accept everything as a fait accompli?Huh

As far as I know the US is the only place where this regulation by bandwidth nonsense has been tried - and who, might I ask, did the proposal come from?  Do you REALLY think that the ARRL opposed this proposal?  On the face of it, the evidence appears to be quite the opposite.

One good thing has come out of this:  we now know that apparently the ARRL plans to revisit its failed BW proposal to the FCC.  It's so damn clear - if only we at HQ could make you ignorant AMers with your "cherished mode" understand that!!
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #242 on: November 10, 2007, 09:29:41 AM »

Steve, nice response to the half-hearted "apology" from Isley.

As a pilot, he should know that putting blinders on, as he continues to do, will eventually cause him to fly it right into the ground.
Logged
W1VD
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 401



« Reply #243 on: November 10, 2007, 09:49:43 AM »

It's clear from Isley's letter that the ARRL intends to pursue regulation by bandwidth, therefore it's no surprise that they didn't vote against the IARU bandplan. 

What we need is a strong organization (NRA and AOPA come to mind) that actually represents US amateur radio operators. With only 20% of amateurs as members the ARRL only speaks for the few...and even then not all of the members (I'm a life member) are on board with the direction of the ARRL. A new organization with > 20% of amateurs as members would have a louder voice than the ARRL...right? Where do I send my check?

 
Logged

'Tnx Fer the Dope OM'.
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #244 on: November 10, 2007, 10:45:18 AM »

I don't favor creating another organization to represent licensees.

I am passionately in favor of getting rid of the current crop of administrators on paid staff in Newington.

The club's volunteer leadership has shown signs of having a spine recently, and  I believe it will be a lot easier to nurture the growth of backbone to take hold of the paid staff, and provide direction to them based on subscriber input.

The problem, as I see it, is that the paid staff are so entrenched, and have such insulation against outside direction, that they feel emboldened to take the kind of cowboy steps they keep getting spanked about.

But the whole discussion of League politics can occupy a separate thread, and maybe we should start a fresh one using this damn IARU cowboy plan as a foundation.
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #245 on: November 10, 2007, 12:20:21 PM »

C'mon, Pete, you really can't be serious if your implication is that because the ARRL has but one vote, they have to accept everything as a fait accompli?Huh

As far as I know the US is the only place where this regulation by bandwidth nonsense has been tried - and who, might I ask, did the proposal come from?  Do you REALLY think that the ARRL opposed this proposal?  On the face of it, the evidence appears to be quite the opposite.

One good thing has come out of this:  we now know that apparently the ARRL plans to revisit its failed BW proposal to the FCC.  It's so damn clear - if only we at HQ could make you ignorant AMers with your "cherished mode" understand that!!

Bandwidth Regulations for Bermuda:
Item 39 of their rules and regulations:
http://www.bermudashorts.bm/rsb/class3r.htm#Amateur_station_licence_or_permit_

Also, you said: "we at HQ could make you ignorant AMers"
But, he(ARRL Director) really said: "very few ignorant people"
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
W2INR
Radio Syracuse
Founding
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1149

Syracuse Radio W2INR


WWW
« Reply #246 on: November 10, 2007, 12:35:22 PM »

Pete

 Just what are you defending here anyways? Are you in agreement with the  proposed restrictions AM or otherwise?

Logged

G - The INR


Amateur Weather Station KNYSYRAC64
Creator - owner - AMfone.net - 2001 - 2010
Founding Member - NEAR-Fest
SWLR-RNŲ54
AF9J
Guest
« Reply #247 on: November 10, 2007, 12:54:17 PM »

OK, My 2 cenyt worth,

I just posted this via the AMradio reflector too, after I read the reply Steve, WD8DAS, got from George Isley, W9GIG:

Quote
Why am I not surprised?  It's all about WINLINK isn't it?  Their precious WINLINK that uses formats that many claim are encrypted (which is illegal in Amateur radio), and that has caused so much ire amongst amateurs, due to it's users firing up and wiping out QSOs already in progress (I experienced this firsthand last year with an 80m Hellschreiber net I used to run - several weeks worth PACTOR QRM firing up in the middle of the net, trashing it, forced us to QSY).  All you have to do is go to the "zed" to find umpteen "I hate WINLINK" threads. WINLINK is being pushed by sailing websites as a cheap way to get around spending money to have the Sailmail e-mail sevice from your boat.  One site even went so far as to say that since amateur licenses have never been easier to get, go get your ham license, and use WINLINK, saving on the Sailmail cost.  Of course "you have to make room for it." So, just get rid if that obsolete "Ancient Modulation."  The worst part of it, is that many hams say that they wonder "why anybody would want to use such an obsolete mode as AM". I read this comment from a ham who sent it to Sherm, KB9Qs blog/e-mail that goes out to numerous hams.  Sherm also included George, W9GIG's scathing e-mail we've
all seen, in his blog. I ended up sending a rather long e-mail to Sherm yesterday, stating why some of us sent out e-mails to the ARRL and IARU, voicing our concern over the new IARU band plan.  In the e-mail, I stated that there was plenty of room nowadays for AM, and that contrary to being an ancient throwback mode, with people only intrested in obsolete radio, many of AM's supporters were very tech savvy (heck some of us are electronics tech, engineers, etc.).  I also stated the same reasons I stated in my e-mail to the IARU about the new band plan (I don't belong to the ARRL anymore, so I really had no right to send them an e-mail about the band
plan), that were also used by many of you in your e-mails:

1.  It could potentially block many new modes that are wider than SSB bandwidth.
2.  It goes against present AM operating practices.
3.  ESSB wouldn't even be allowed.
4.  Even though it wouldn't be the law, the band plan could cause conflict between hams who don't follow it, and those who would insist that it should be treated like the law.
5.  I did not openly state, but implied that the band plan might be used as a back door to start up Regulation by Bandwidth (ala RM-11304 [which I sent my comments to the FCC, about]) again.

Now it looks like the ARRL is trying to push WINLINK once again.


I tell you people, they hate AM, and the LOVE Winlink.  You read Isley's response. He purposely cites WINLINK 2000 time and time again.  And states how the only thing keeping from becoming more popular, is the cost of the modem. You've gotta be kidding!  Is the ARRL so blind to all of the "I hate WINLINK" feelings that are out there?  Just go to the "zed", and you'll find umpteen different threads in this vein.  Yep, it sure looks like they're pushing for more regulation by bandwidth.

73,
Elllen - AF9J
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #248 on: November 10, 2007, 12:58:36 PM »

Quote
9 NOV 2007 - 1505 CDT

Steven B. Johnston, WD8DAS

Dear Mr. Johnston,

Thank you for writing to me twice about the recently approved IARU Region 2
Band Plan.  I have been slow in responding to your messages because of
coincidental bad timing.  Your two emails and a very few others (current
total of 24) on this issue, along with approximately 300 other unrelated
emails arrived during time period when I was planning for and recovering
from a minor outpatient surgical procedure the past two weeks.  I mention
this only to explain my slow response.


But you had enough time to compose a condescending and inflammatory rant to all the Central Division members? Sounds like 'the dog ate my homework' excuse. How pathetic.


Quote
Also, when a given issue appears to be generating some controversy, I like
to wait until I have a reasonable reading on the issue and the emails
I have received.  For routine ARRL items, I try to respond within 48
hours, if I am
at home.  Now to get down to business...


Did you wait before putting out your condescending and inflammatory rant to all the Central Division members? This is another pathetic attempt to weasel out of your responsibility.


Quote
I admit I should have used neutral, less inflammatory words in my
last email posting to the entire Central Division and for this
apologize to you.

Why not apologize to everyone, since you clearly offended more than one person?


Quote
However, I stand by the content of my message because:

1. The Region 2 IARU band plan is only advisory and has no effect on our
    current U.S. Amateur Radio Service HF band plan.  The primary intent of
    this document is to provide guidance to Region 2 amateur radio societies
    in countries that have little or nothing in the way of a band plan.  How
    hams in other parts of the world operate effect us and vice versa.  And
    regardless of your or my personal views on band plans, we would have
    chaos without band plan regulations.

 


Please explain. What is a band plan regulation? Either the IARU band plan is voluntary, or it is a regulation. You seem more than a little confused. Yet, it is "these people" who are ignorant.


Quote

2. There are hams in the U.S. (and other parts of the world) who fear any
    real or perceived change in the status quo.  Regardless of my poor
    description of these people, it does not change the fact that they exist
    and that a very few of them are very quick to publicly take offense.
    Those who fall into this category seldom accept all the facts about the
    issue, or issues that have caused them to speak out.  At best, they cherry
    pick the facts that support their viewpoint.  The phrase in my mind that
    best describes this situation is, "Don't confuse me with the facts because
    my mind is already made up."


This sounds like a self description. You characterized a group of people (although the actual people, the size and diversity are all undefined by you) without knowing anything about them.


Quote
The people I described in #2 certainly have the right to speak out
and I was wrong in my choice of descriptive words in my last division
email posting.

But I wish individuals who accept at face value what is being said by
these people would do their own independent fact-checking.  I'm
skeptical about a
lot of what is said and published about controversial issues, both
within and outside of amateur radio, until I have done my own
homework.  My wife says I
am too suspicious, but this characteristic contributed to my
longevity as a military and then as a civilian professional
pilot.  And in retirement, it's still my frame of reference.

This skepticism first had me opposing regulation by bandwidth when it
gained serious consideration by the ARRL board.  It took me about a
year to finally understand the rationale for it and to then make sure
that no existing HF
users would be shut out in the proposal.


So, it's perfectly fine for you to be skeptical. You seem to wear it as a badge of honor. But if others are skeptical, especially of the ARRL, they are branded  "ignorant people", "gullible, biased, have an axe to grind" and "these people." The utter hypocrisy of your position is only exceeded by your arrogance.



Quote
The concept of regulation by bandwidth was developed via informal FCC-ARRL
staff discussions over several years before I arrived on the ARRL board in
2001.  



And the ignorant people you speak of are aware of the ARRL's long standing approach to bandwidth regulation. Thus, the skepticism regarding bandwidth limitations seen elsewhere when the ARRL is involved. I'm sure this is a nuance a superior mind such as yours would have surely observed. After all, you were both a military and civilian pilot!


Quote
When (orthogonal?) modulation systems started showing up that
legally allow wide-band signals in narrow (non-voice) HF sub-bands,
work on a band- width regulation proposal was formalized by board
resolution about 18 months after my arrival.  I believe Winlink 2000
is the first operating mode to use this modulation system.


You've just verified your technical incompetence.


Quote
With the withdrawal of the ARRL's regulation by bandwidth proposal
this past February, this situation will get worse.  The only real
impediment to further Winlink 2000 use is the very high cost of the
proprietary modem.  Eventually, this cost will come down.  I'm not
opposed to any operating mode including Winlink 2000.  But I'm
opposed to it's use in our narrow-band sub-bands.
Under our current Part 97 Regulations, it is legal there.


This is a hackneyed argument that was thoroughly discredited during the FCC proposal and comment process. When will you and the rest of the ARRL either come up with a better one or drop your misguided regulation by bandwidth dogma?

From the FCC--

Quote
"We conclude that Petitioners' request for an amendment of our rules is inconsistent with the Commission's objective of encouraging the experimental aspects of amateur radio service. The Petition also fails to demonstrate that a deviation from the Commission's longstanding practice of allowing operating flexibility within the amateur service community is either warranted or necessary. In this regard, we note that most operators use the amateur service spectrum in a manner consistent with the basic purpose of the amateur service." Source: FCC-DA-04-3661A1

==


Quote
I seriously doubt if another regulation by bandwidth proposal will be put
forth by the ARRL board in the near future.  We failed to educate the
U.S. amateur radio community about the history of and rationale for
our first proposal, and to make sure nearly everyone understood how
it would work.  The ARRL board of directors has to do it's homework
if we want to have regulation by bandwidth accepted by the U.S.
amateur radio community.



Once educated completely, the concept was soundly rejected. The problem is not one of education (although it seems a theme of yours - ignorant people), but one of a bad idea on the part of the ARRL.


Quote
I support amateur radio HF regulation by bandwidth.  



And thus, the skepticism by those who don't.


Quote
However, I will
not support an effort to rush another proposal to the FCC.  I have no idea how
long this educational process will take.  But I currently believe
anything shorter than two years from 1 JAN 2008 will fail.

- George R. Isely, W9GIG
   ARRL Central Div. Director

   St. Charles, IL

   w9gig@arrl.org


Instead, you will support bandwidth limitations within the IARU band plans as future leverage for FCC regulation. It would appear you are unwilling or unable to engage in a legitimate debate with those who oppose regulation by bandwidth. Your resort to name calling and the general dismissal of "these people" is stark proof.
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #249 on: November 10, 2007, 01:08:25 PM »

Pete

 Just what are you defending here anyways? Are you in agreement with the  proposed restrictions AM or otherwise?

Regulation by bandwidth already exists in some countries including Region 2.

FCC Regulations are the law of the land in the U.S. not a voluntary Region 2 band plan. My point: The Region 2 band plan is voluntary; it has no power of authority for U. S. amateurs; likewise, it has no power in any other country either. The current ITU conference has no plans on their agenda to pursue mandatory regulation by bandwidth in countries where they don't exist now.

Proposed regulation by bandwidth is not going away here in the U. S. We won't see it today or even tomorrow, but several years down the road, most, if not all countries in all Regions, will define and have some sort of "regulations by bandwidth".
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Pages: 1 ... 9 [10] 11 ... 29   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
 AMfone © 2001-2015
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.073 seconds with 19 queries.