Bandwidth Recommendations

[k4kyv]

If this proposal makes it to the FCC, it offers the opportunity to have subbands eliminated altogether.  Based on some of the comments on QRZ, it might be more appropriate for any remaining subband segmentation to limit unattended operation instead of signal bandwidths or  emission modes.  Very often, a rulemaking petition ultimately results in action by the FCC that has little resemblance to the initial proposal.  A case in point is incentive licensing.  The original ARRL proposal was to go back to the pre-1951 class A/ B licence structure.  The FCC went in a different direction altogether, deciding to segment the bands instead.  Once the petition is submitted to the FCC, it is beyond the control of the petitioner and there is no guarantee that the outcome will be identical to what was originally proposed.

Thtat brings up a worrisome aspect to this whole thing.  The proposed stardard bandwidth limit is 3 kc/s with a clause that grants an exception for AM.  It is not carved in stone that if this petition is adopted into the rules, the FCC will include the special 9 kc/s povision for AM, or that it would be permanant.  We could end up with something like the 7-year sunset clause that came with the power issue.

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

Petey,

 Come on Now, you and I are both members of the same element here, and neither of us are working from some "Dark Avenger" Conspiracy theory, i did a test yesterday on a piece of new equipment and it doesn't add up, Now is their ideal from the corner of a "Flat Response" or a defined set of Brackets..?  subsequent reason for my Post on a defined set of parameters...Define for me what their ideal is...

 I did the math and the Test and to stay within what I have percieved to be their Limits {Proposed} the signal Intelligibility is Suffered to the point of "Telephone Audio" not going to be much help in a DX pileup on Scientific Set Back...we both know that Intelligibility increases with Bandwidth and there is a point of aqueisence, now i've always figured that to be at the 3.5 Kc level at a Flat Passband, most filtering being done at 2.4 or 2.8 with 6 db points rolloff Psychocousticly speaking a sound can be found that is somewhat pleasing in a rag chew or tighten up for dx..But That is with what we have now...I'm fine with that...they should Leave this alone...

 Again if they want to address the up and coming Modes Fine address them and keep the service Fluid to make room, but to do this Does not require "Limits" on what we have now...you do the Test on AM with thier ideal and tell me what your passband will look like at 6Kc Brickwall approach...what will it look like graphicly and audibly...  is this what you want..? I'm Fine with the rules we have now OM....

Again, Or am I in error on their approach...tell me i'm lost trying to keep up with them at 26 db Down...when most filters specify a bandwidth distance between 6 db points...I don't Know... :?

[W8ER]

Pete quoted Sumner's statement's

From the ARRL Letter: "We are in the early stages of a dramatic shift in amateur HF operating
patterns, and it's impossible to predict where this shift may lead," Sumner
said. "The FCC rules should not stand in the way of where technology takes
us in our fulfillment of the bases and purposes of Amateur Radio." The
bandwidth initiative is aimed in part at encouraging new digital modes, but
the primary emphasis is to avoid having to write a new rule every time a new
mode bursts onto the scene. The League's proposals will establish a
framework that creates an environment for change over the next decade--and
perhaps longer, Sumner concluded.

Pete .. I have been asking and will be asking for a while yet ... WHAT digital modes?

This is like building highways that give cars and trucks one lane, reserving all others for vehicles as yet undefined and unknown. I do not accept that hams are on the cusp of major mysterious revolution that would require such attention that Sumner would have us all believe! Is the sky falling Pete?

It sure seems to me that the 160 band plan works well. On a contest weekend I actually heard AM'ers and SSB guys give way to the contest ... darn it seems to work. Using the same theory on the rest of the HF bands, wouldn't it give us the required flexibility if such a major revolution really happened ... without the need for further FCC rulings?

And for heaven sakes, WHY just WHY would we want to propose adopting any bandwidth specific restriction where we have none today? That's like having the Porche Club of Germany proposing speed limits on the autobahn!

Let's do this ... Let the FCC make all ham bands look like 160 and let the ARRL propose band plans that are keeping with the technology!

 :?:  :?:  :?:

--Larry W8ER

[Art]

Hmmmm 160M works fine 95% of the time. The other, "more regulated" bands have problems?. . . . so the logical choice is to add more regulation?

Any one been in a digital QSO lately? . . . not CW, or Pactor, or narrow band this or that. . . . digital voice?

I look in Qstreet and see one ad for a digital voice adaptor . . . no rigs that I can think of . . .  'gonna convert your old Nextel phone for 902?

That analogy of the road for other than cars, busses, and trucks was a good one . . .

Assuming this proposal has any merit. Are we defining the way digital voice should develop? . . . or delimiting such development?

We have a declining use mode that is allocated huge chunks of spectrum and a purportedly increasing use mode that may require spectrum. 'any one want to follow this logic through?

This proposal makes no sense to me. It made little sense to the FCC. Perhaps I am not viewing the big picture. . . .


-ap

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

WA2CWA sez:

"Good" Hi-Fi is great on your home sound system.  Amateur Radio is not Hi-Fi heaven. If you can't sound "good" in 6, 7, or 8 KHz, you probably need to go back and review the design.

Why not? You give no technical or logical reasons for this statement. The facts are that limiting bandwidth only limits the chances of amateurs developing a new and better comms system. The case of Armstrong and wideband FM should serve as an example. The "experts" of the day scoffed when Armstrong claimed he achieved better SNR at wider bandwidths. This is counterintuitive to most of us, even today. But it was true. Claiming that 6 or 7 kHz is enough sounds too much like the "experts" of yesteryear.

[k4kyv]

...Let's do this ... Let the FCC make all ham bands look like 160 and let the ARRL propose band plans that are keeping with the technology!

Gather up the comments the FCC made in the R&O when they rejected the recent bandwidth petition, plus those made by ARRL itself regarding flexibility in the rules and possible future modes, and you already have a convincing argument AGAINST the subbands-by-bandwidth proposal.

It appears to me that the League's position translates to admitting that the existing subband structure is outdated, but instead of petitioning to go the 160m/Canada/rest of the world route, they refuse to let go and have instead proposed a last-ditch effort to save the obsolete subband system at any cost, rather than simply relegating subbands to the dustbin of history where they belong.

Some of the discussion on the QRZ.com thread brings up valid concerns regarding automated unattended operation.  That could be adequately addressed under voluntary band planning that would limit unattended operation to appropriate segments within each band.  If necessary, this could be enforced by the FCC much in the manner that repeater coordination is enforced today.

One positive aspect for the AM community to come out of this discussion is that I have seen no grumbling about the special bandwidth provision for AM, with an arugment that the mode should be eliminated.

[W8ER]

Don .. you said:

but instead of petitioning to go the 160m/Canada/rest of the world route, they refuse to let go and have instead proposed a last-ditch effort to save the obsolete subband system at any cost, rather than simply relegating subbands to the dustbin of history where they belong.

That is exactly how it appears! BUT WHY?

I cannot conceive of one good reason. It doesn't financially benefit them. It doesn't win them new members. It certainly doesn't give them status of any kind. It doesn't win them advertisers. It doesn't benefit the hobby. I just don't get it!

Any ideas?


--Larry W8ER

[W3SLK]

Don said,

It appears to me that the League's position translates to admitting that the existing subband structure is outdated, but instead of petitioning to go the 160m/Canada/rest of the world route, they refuse to let go and have instead proposed a last-ditch effort to save the obsolete subband system at any cost, rather than simply relegating subbands to the dustbin of history where they belong.

 Why? Probvably because it wasn't of their own thinking. Not original enough. What will happen is that the FCC will come and decree something that everyone dislikes. That will be our desserts and we will have to eat it.
Just an opinion from my desolate corner of the universe.

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

...Let's do this ... Let the FCC make all ham bands look like 160 and let the ARRL propose band plans that are keeping with the technology!

Gather up the comments the FCC made in the R&O when they rejected the recent bandwidth petition, plus those made by ARRL itself regarding flexibility in the rules and possible future modes, and you already have a convincing argument AGAINST the subbands-by-bandwidth proposal.

It appears to me that the League's position translates to admitting that the existing subband structure is outdated, but instead of petitioning to go the 160m/Canada/rest of the world route, they refuse to let go and have instead proposed a last-ditch effort to save the obsolete subband system at any cost, rather than simply relegating subbands to the dustbin of history where they belong.

Some of the discussion on the QRZ.com thread brings up valid concerns regarding automated unattended operation.  That could be adequately addressed under voluntary band planning that would limit unattended operation to appropriate segments within each band.  If necessary, this could be enforced by the FCC much in the manner that repeater coordination is enforced today.

One positive aspect for the AM community to come out of this discussion is that I have seen no grumbling about the special bandwidth provision for AM, with an arugment that the mode should be eliminated.

Ya know Don i'm a member of the WPA Repeater Association and Glad i am and alot of good does get done, and things get handled and the people stick together and work problems out and the system works...I agree with you...a reminder that WE are a Self Policing Force....Good thought OM...

[W1RFI]

I cannot conceive of one good reason. It doesn't financially benefit them. It doesn't win them new members. It certainly doesn't give them status of any kind. It doesn't win them advertisers. It doesn't benefit the hobby. I just don't get it!

I will start by saying that my personal view is that rules that said, "There are  your band edges; these are your power limits -- stay within them" would work for me.

From the discussions I have seen about this, the objections seem to run the gamut, from those that think that sub-bands should be scrapped altogther to those that think that the proposal does not offer enough sub-band protection to their favorite mode.

I will offer some personal views.  No cc's to my boss this time, guys, okay?

I will start with the premise that the present sub-band mechanism no longer works well.  As hams want to experiment with new modes, the regulatory wailing and gnashing of teeth really gets in the way of that.  Any attempt to find a home for something like digital voice under the present scheme is destined for failure.  Without some changes, would it be fair to try to shoehorn in digital voice on top of the already crowded phone sub-bands?  I don't think so.  But digital voice is coming, and wider digital modes are in use by the rest of the radio world, and Amateur Radio is not serving itself well to be as far removed from them as it is. Like it or not, that is the future of radio in general (it is the present of radio in general for that matter), and Amateur Radio should be as much a part of modern radio as it was when the modes we all enjoy were first introduced into our Service.

So if some change has to be made, ARRL is in a position of having to propose a change that encompasses the views of a diverse membership.  I fear that if it abolished sub-bands altogether, the backlash would be pretty serious.  What it is proposing is to segregate signals by bandwidth, not by mode, with the premise that signals are most compatible with signals of similar bandwidth. If you try to slot in a 3 kHz wide signal, then a 50 Hz wide signal, then a 1 kHz wide signal, then another 50 Hz wide signal... well, you get the idea.  As I look at those who are afraid that the proposal will not offer them enough protection from other modes, we all have to recognize that the desire for some sub-band regulation of some sort is not a minority view at all.

All in all, I think the concept has merit. The Devil is in the details.  Some feel that the bandwidth limits set forth are an attempt to actually regulate bandwidth. I don't see it that way.  From the testing I have done, it appears to me that a 3 kHz bandwidth will encompass virtually all of the signals that are on the bands today, and virtually all rigs -- with human speech.  Remember, the spectral content of speech is not uniform, and when one makes a measurement that includes the characteristics of speech; the shape of the transmit and audio filtering in rigs and the way that spectral content varies with time to obtain measurements of mean power, the 3 kHz limit is a defacto good representation of present operation.  Heck, with that carrier ripping along and adding to the mean power of the emission without adding any bandwidth, I bet most full-carrier, double sideband signals would fit in 3 kHz. :-)

So who loses and who gains in the proposal?  IMHO, there are no losers.

o Under the present rules, that 3 kHz wide digital signal could appear on 14.005 kHz.  The "weak-signal" CW bands would be offered protection.

o Under the present rules, it is not at all certain that a 3 kHz wide digital signal could be used at all, and certainly not one that was spectrally efficient, but exceeded the symbol rate limits mandated by the present rules. The proposal permits more digital experimentation.

o Under the present rules, digital voice must operate on the "phone" allocations.  The proposal would offer more room for digital data and phone signals to operate.

o The proposal does mix phone and wider digital signals, but in a wider band, limited not by regulation, but by band plan.  When and as needed, band plans -- or individual operators, would have more flexibility and the bands could change on an ad hoc basis as needed -- maybe giving the Old Buzzards a bit of breathing room on the DX Phone 'test weekend.

So, would a band-plan only scheme work?  I can think of a few bad apples that would help ensure that it doesn't.  It has happened on 160 M - ask the CW DX community if they think that band planning is always a solution. It has happened with 2 meters, with FM being legal on 144.2 MHz, and some operators sticking to their guns and creaming the weak-signal guys. And when ARRL asked the FCC for a declaratory ruling that operating outside the band plan was a prima facia indicator that the station was in violation of the rules to use good operating practice, the wailing and gnashing of teeth was pretty loud.

The ARRL Board has voted in principle to propose some for of regulation by bandwidth (not regulation of bandwidth, so much).  It decided to put forth its proposal to the amateur community up front, in advance, and ask for input. That input has effected changes in its proposals, and at this point, the proposal is a recommendation by a Board Committee, to be put forth to the entire Board.  If there are still things that need to be changed, put them (or put them back) on the table.

I have views on this  and I will again communicate them to Tom Frenaye.  In general, I like the concept, but I can see a few changes that could address some of the concerns of some hams.  Unfortunately, some of those concerns probably can't be addressed, as in some cases, some of what I have seen on eham and qrz looked like little more to me than soapbox oratory, and just as useful. :-)

Just my personal opinion, of course.  Now back to my hidey hole. :-)

[W8ER]

I will start by saying that my personal view is that rules that said, "There are  your band edges; these are your power limits -- stay within them" would work for me.

Ed,  it will work and benefit the majority of us. It is not good to assume that there will be a few bad apples and for that reason alone proceed with the labor of dividing up the HF bands into protected little communities. If a mode works .. it will succeed. If it doesn't, it won't.

To that statement look quickly at the mode you tout as being the future .. digital phone. It is well documented that digital phone cannot tolerate interference. I don't think we have to go any further to see what kind of future that has in amateur radio, broadcasting is different. So I simply ask, what do we do, set aside a portion of the band for digital phone because the mode can't handle it any other way?

I will offer some personal views.  No cc's to my boss this time, guys, okay?

You can't deny that the line between "ED the ARRL guy" and "ED the guy" is blurred somewhat.  Your boss should understand this. When we see you and Jim Haynie posting, side by side, it is easy to put you on the same level and cc'ing your boss is no different than cc'ing interested parties! Maybe he should be running the lab and you should be President of the ARRL!

I will start with the premise that the present sub-band mechanism no longer works well.

I think everyone (almost) would agree with that!

Any attempt to find a home for something like digital voice under the present scheme is destined for failure.  Without some changes, would it be fair to try to shoehorn in digital voice on top of the already crowded phone sub-bands?  I don't think so.

I seem to remember that experimental modes met with much favor when refined in less crowded spectrum like VHF and UHF. On those bands, bandwidth is much less of an issue. Take FM for instance, I believe that the bulk of the experimentation was done on 50 mhz and above. It also became evident during this experimentation that it was not suitable for use in the HF spectrum. Why not take these digital experimental modes into spectum space where it does not impact the present activity?

but digital voice is coming, and wider digital modes are in use by the rest of the radio world, and Amateur Radio is not serving itself well to be as far removed from them as it is. Like it or not, that is the future of radio in general (it is the present of radio in general for that matter), and Amateur Radio should be as much a part of modern radio as it was when the modes we all enjoy were first introduced into our Service.

So let's see Ed, back 50 years ago we should have set aside part of the HF spectrum by allocating a sub band (by FCC edict)  for FM experimentation because it was the future of radio? and yes we all hear Radio Mondiale encroaching on the top end of 75 meters. I don't think any of us are impressed!

So if some change has to be made, ARRL is in a position of having to propose a change that encompasses the views of a diverse membership.  I fear that if it abolished sub-bands altogether, the backlash would be pretty serious.

Oh where's the scrote!!! :shock:  :shock: If you want to be thought of as being the leaders you have to be bold, you have to look at everything but the backlash! Do you think Truman looked at backlash when he decided to drop the "bomb"?

What it is proposing is to segregate signals by bandwidth, not by mode, with the premise that signals are most compatible with signals of similar bandwidth. If you try to slot in a 3 kHz wide signal, then a 50 Hz wide signal, then a 1 kHz wide signal, then another 50 Hz wide signal... well, you get the idea.

No I don't. You are again assuming that the population has the knowledge and equipment to make it so. It doesn't and won't. I'd like to be a fly on the wall and watch you teach a class of 60 and 70 year old hams how to measure bandwidth and how to use an MFJ spectrum analyzer! You know, the ones that will be bitching to the FCC that they heard a guy on last night that was in the 3 khz portion of the band but was 3.5 khz wide! Do you really understand the impact of what sub bands by bandwidth is going to do? It's not a bad idea if everybody understands but so far I believe that I can name a couple of hams that do .. you and HUZ .. and I'll give you a handfull of others BUT what about the guy with the IcomWood transceiver that barely knows how to turn it on and has a guy running an AL-1500 right down the street? Do you want to take that call?

As I look at those who are afraid that the proposal will not offer them enough protection .... <snip> ....
All in all, I think the concept has merit. The Devil is in the details.

 

It's not fear ED, it simply won't work because of lack of knowledge about it and the ability to properly measure it and people are trying to tell you that!

Some feel that the bandwidth limits set forth are an attempt to actually regulate bandwidth. I don't see it that way.

Why not? This is exactly like the Porche Club of Germany proposing that speed limits be set on the Autobahn. We have no definition or limits today and this proposal sets them .. and further does not indicate the intracies of how it is to be measured! From that aspect alone the ARRL proposal sucks.

So who loses and who gains in the proposal?  IMHO, there are no losers.

Of couse there are. The losers are those who may occasionally open up their audio and ocassionally exceed 3 khz of bandwidth or 9 khz of bandwidth in the case of AM. Some of us may do that occasionally at 3 in the morning ED, or when the band is not so crowded! That's just one example.

o Under the present rules, it is not at all certain that a 3 kHz wide digital signal could be used at all, and certainly not one that was spectrally efficient, but exceeded the symbol rate limits mandated by the present rules. The proposal permits more digital experimentation.

o Under the present rules, digital voice must operate on the "phone" allocations.  The proposal would offer more room for digital data and phone signals to operate.

Digital experimentation above 30 mhz would be great and I don't see that there is a lack of spectrum spact to allow that in the present allocation. In fact the ARRL bandplan for 2 meters has sections that are defined as for "experimantal" modes! I also don't see the need to complicate the HF band plan just to accomodate "digital dabblers" (experimenters)! This concept that you propose is really a new concept.

So, would a band-plan only scheme work?  I can think of a few bad apples that would help ensure that it doesn't.  It has happened on 160 M - ask the CW DX community if they think that band planning is always a solution. ....<snip>

Ed, sure there a few examples on both sides about how 160 or band plans work or don't work but for the most part, it does work and it works well! I have been on 160 exclusively for the past few months and it has worked like a well oiled machine. I've listened extensively and rarely heard a problem and there was always pleanty of activity and room for each mode. You know what, when the 160 CW sweepstakes came on, the whole band was CW practically. The ssb/am activity was nill until the last point was made and then I fired up on 1885 with a big ol AM signal from my Ranger II and bullshitted for two hours and it was fun!

Just my personal opinion, of course.  Now back to my hidey hole. :-)

I hope that some of "my" personal opinions on the matter could get to Tom Frenaye also. I see this as an opportunity to get into step with the rest of the world and leave this sub band crap behind. I also see it as an opportunity for the ARRL to start behaving like a leader in this matter. Now that would be a WIN WIN situation!

--Larry W8ER

[Art]

"From the discussions I have seen about this, the objections seem to run the gamut, from those that think that sub-bands should be scrapped altogther to those that think that the proposal does not offer enough sub-band protection to their favorite mode. "

Ed this is only correct to a very small degree. The vast majority of amateurs that I know; AMers, keyboard digital mode users, CW ops (to a much lesser degree), and the one person I know who has digital voice capability (me). Running the gamut is a correct statement even if 95% have opposing opinion and 5% are in support. You are fairly safe.

If this proposal is designed to protect the capability of amateur radio to expand into digital voice why would you delimit the ability to do so at this time in its development by imposing a mask that may not apply?

Amateur radio is a service which includes experimental in its justification, why would you inhibit the capability to experiment? SSB was wide at one time, AM was less controlled than it is now, (yes, I can run my SDR-1000 at +-10KHz, but I don't on 75M on Sat. night), FM was not as advanced either. Your'e a smart guy, you get the idea.

So, I am an active ham who buys the products advertised in QST. I am a life member of ARRL. I know many who are like me in this respect who think additional regulation is ill advised at best.

The multi part question: Why is the ARRL pursuing a path that its membership, with the exception of direct beneficiaries, doesn't want? 'doesn't make technical sense from an administration or station operation  perspective, will probably inhibit development of the mode for which it purports support, and is in conflict with demonstrated successful operation on 160 in the US and around the world. :has not been answered.

It's a solution in search of a problem.

Why?

-ap

[Ed/KB1HYS]

Regulation will only serve to protect the special interests of a few, and band plans and gentlemens aggreements are just that, an informal form of Regulation.  Maximum growth and advancement happens when things are wide open.   Yes there are problems with that, interference and Lids have been around since the earliest days, and no amount of Rules or regualtions will rid us of them. (Maybe better a wide open band and a very hard to get ticket??)  
If the intent (of the ARRL) is to encourage experimentation and growth of Amature Radio, then the regulations need to be reduced, NOT increased.
Especially by rules that only about 10% of todays ham population can correctly interpret and more importantly measure.   Band Plan by band width is equivilent to Speed limit without speedometer!!!!  How can you tell if your within the limitations? Acurate measurements are the only way, but who's going to drop the $$$$ for spectrum analyzers and training to correctly use and interpret the instrumentation??  On the other side, how could you prove you were operating correctly to a Hyper active FCC enforcement type, They are so understanding and knowledgeable about the rules and technical aspects of radio today after all.
 
 "Digital" is the magic word now-a-days.  Just like "atomic" back in the fifties.  If you aren't "Digital" capable then you must be behind the times, with no regard as to weather the Digital mode (of whatever you're using) is actually better. Cell phones being a perfect example.

Personally I think this is an attempt, by the ARRL, to show some political types (FCC?) that they are accomodating the "New and So Much Better" Digital world.

Just my $.02

(how come keyboards don't have the cent sign anymore?? )

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Ed asked:

just my $.02

(how come keyboards don't have the cent sign anymore?? Smile

From the keyboard 2 and then Alt +0162
2˘ or 2˘ or 2˘

[Art]

"We have carefully considered all comments filed, including comments filed in support of the Petition,  and some alternative proposals.   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. "

-ap

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

"Moreover, the Commission has previously declined to restrict bandwidth for AM because to do so would be inconsistent with the basic purpose of amateur service and our desire to offer amateur operators the opportunity to experiment with various types. "


- Federal Communications Commission
   DA-04 3661 

[WA1GFZ]

Why do we ned more regulation? Someone have nothing to do?
I wonder if why things need to change when there are less hams.
Many problems are self correcting anyway. I tune across the bands and find lots of open space. It isn't like we share 40 chanels even though many belong on 40 channels. What is the motivation?
I wonder who wants to take all the old rigs off the air so we have to buy new rice boxes.
Just like gun laws we do not need any more.

[W8ER]

GFZ ... when you question the need for change ... what about HALF of our HF spectrum being reserved for the CW mode. When you listen it is empty.

Listen to our phone bands and they get crowded. There are squabbles daily because the SSB guys say AM'ers take up too much bandwidth and the AM'ers say the window is too small, let's spread out.

Of course we could leave it alone, leave it like it is, like you say and 10 years from now the CW portion of the HF ham bands could still be empty and Jim Haynie could be before congress asking for more amateur HF spectrum space again.

Hmmm .. wouldn't an extra couple of hundred khz be nice? If you think not, listen to the Canadians down on 3725 on AM at night! It's a clear frequency, no QRM, they sound good. They have fun! At the same time us Americans are up in the Window being QRMed by the SSB guys.

Personally I think a change would be refreshing for the hobby, just not the change the ARRL is proposing!

--Larry W8ER

[w3jn]

Let's not bust Ed's balls here.  As he stated in his post, his views only, not those of the ARRL.  WHile I agree with most of the statements made here on this subject I respectfully submit we should save the flames for those who can/should actually do something about this abomination - your division director and, when the time comes, the FCC comment system.

73 John

[Art]

John, et al. . . .

Quite the contrary . . . I respect Ed in the extreme. He has the stones to join in and directly discuss a difficult subject with the general amateur pop. That's more than ARRL fearless leader types seem to be doing. . .  not first hand knowledge, admittedly. . .  but if they are talking with a cross section of the amateur population. . .they are ignoring their input. . .

I don't see Ed as the problem. . .  I see (best case) well intentioned, ignorant ARRL leadership.

My problem is it seems like I have paid them to act on my behalf and they aren't.

'did a good job on BPL tho . . . .

Yes, I will convey this via other means to the ARRL. . . .

-ap

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Wonder when the FCC is going to air the petition that's already before them,
http://www.arrl.org/news/restructuring2/restrux2-petition.pdf

This in itself will cause major changes to the populating of our favorite amateur bands. It's hard to imagine the ARRL will hit the FCC with another "major" petition in July unless they feel a two barrel blast is better than one.

[Ed/KB1HYS]

Oh man  ...

...the fact that the entry level Technician Class license examination is (of necessity) overly comprehensive in its subject matter...

So We're not dumb enough yet apparently.  And people thought the getting to know your rig column was overboard.  

Might as well get a big ole CB and Linyear...

maybe we can save 160m...

[KA8WTK]

Up front, let me say I am an ARRL member. I think they do a lot of good for Amateur Radio in Education, in getting Ham Radio publicity, learning aids for new Hams and other publications, against threats to our bands and BPL. In short, what other organization does any of this (or any thing at all) for Ham Radio?

In my opinion, there is a possible "Why" for their proposal……

I feel the ARRL must act because they feel that to lead is to act. So, like any other organization, to justify their real or imagined position of leadership in their field they are compelled to act in order to appear to be doing something. To fail to act is to appear to be impotent. Also, nature abhors a vacuum. There have been no other proposals that I am aware of that cover what the ARRL is attempting to address; the "new" modes.

We all know there are new modes coming. Hams of certain interests are experimenters. The QRP, Class E and Digital guys are just three of the experimenter groups out there. So, with the "new" digital modes gaining popularity, the League probably feels the need to advance these new, experimental modes by taking what it feels is a leadership position and therefore doing something. After all, this experimentation and mode development advances the "art" and that is part of the Amateur Service.

To this point I say "OK FINE!"  But, what the ARRL wants to do along with advancing these new modes is not something I would want to see it happen.

Let’s say that at some date the FCC is sitting on a Novice Reallocation proposal, No Code and this from the ARRL plus a couple of other proposals. If you remember the last time the FCC ruled on proposals it sort of threw them in a drum, shook them up, and out came a rule making. The rule making depends on what is in the drum at the time (or at least appears to be).

Now, I don’t like the maximum bandwidth parts of this plan for SSB and AM any more than any of you for just the reasons many of you have stated. I also feel that if you are going to "protect" spectrum for digital use, then keep it all there. The introductary comments from the ARRL on their web page about the proposal seem to be in direct contradiction with the proposal itself. I will comment against the proposal if it is put forth for these reasons.

 I would prefer to support an alternative proposal. But where is it? Has anyone filed one that asks for the 160/Canada/ Rest-of-the-World style band plan? Is there any other plan? There is nothing else "in the drum" that I am aware of. Due to this, we will all need to fight this if it becomes a formal proposal, but it would be better if we had a plan to put forth and support as an alternative. We need to find a positive direction to go.

End of random thoughts……….  

[Paul, K2ORC]

I'm confused.  One of the objectives of the
ARRL bandwidth based proposal as I
understand it, is the accomodation and
segregation of digital modes.  Some of
these modes use 50 kHz of bandwidth.  
It seems that for the most part, the widest
digital signals are coming from a handful of
stations using a protocol for email forwarding.
As I understand it, the email is being
forwarded to remote users (e.g., RVers)
and it originates on commercial ISPs.  
Some of these emails apparently have
commercial content.  If that's the case,
can someone please explain what such stuff
is doing on the amateur bands in the first place?

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

I wasn't going to further any more opinons here but in any case, if the obvious questions, problems were to be addressed first,  then the anticipated activities will fall into place by subsequent logical order by mode/frequency space alotted.

Predelection towards advancement "ie" enhancement of the service should always remain Fluid and Diverse and ANY Limit imposed on any one part will only add stress on the remaining subparts.....

While looking at the bandplans we are given and the rules for engagement that have been handed down through time, and what are the Actual Happenings Now today, there are needs that are being ignored in lue of a protectionist leadership.

I see it no other way.......