Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /homepages/11/d132647312/htdocs/Amfone/mkportal/include/SMF/smf_out.php on line 47
League moving forward




 
The AM Forum
December 02, 2021, 04:35:53 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]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: League moving forward  (Read 17499 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
2ZE
Guest
« on: July 19, 2005, 02:33:37 PM »

Just an FYI, don't shoot the messenger.

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/19/3/?nc=1
Logged
Bow/KD5KZN
Guest
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2005, 02:47:48 PM »

wow...

who's side are they on?

 :?


Belay my last...

I just read that 8 page string blow this one...

yikes...
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7917


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2005, 03:13:07 AM »

Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
W1DAN
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 846



« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2005, 10:09:06 AM »

Hi All:

I am saddened by this event.

I do not know what the public comment percentage for and against is, but I feel the problem could be handled more scientifically.

I get the feeling there will be interference between modes.

Lucky my AM set meets the 9kc reccomendation!

73
Dan
W1DAN
Logged
K1MVP
Guest
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2005, 11:34:01 AM »

Quote from: W1DAN
Hi All:

I am saddened by this event.

I do not know what the public comment percentage for and against is, but I feel the problem could be handled more scientifically.

I get the feeling there will be interference between modes.

Lucky my AM set meets the 9kc reccomendation!
[W1DAN unquote]
 

Hi Dan,
 How long the 9kc exemption will remain in effect, will be anybody`s
 guess.
 As far as "inteference" between modes,(no problem)--with the present
 "mindset" all a guy will do is "strap" the other guy with high power.

                      73, Rene, K1MVP
Logged
Art
Guest
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2005, 02:12:18 PM »

Pete,
I am confused, help me . . The ARRL says their plan cannot work without the good will of amateurs, that ops do not operate in areas occupied by others *voluntarily*, that a band plan will need to be developed that will require cooperation . . .  crazy as it may seem, I totally agree. But, but, weren't these the very same things that I was told couldn't be attained? That amateurs were too juvenile, self centered, and irresponsible to base any proposal on such premises??? QTF OM
Huh??
Logged
Jim, W5JO
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2480


« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2005, 02:33:17 PM »

Gee Art, they were hoping that no one would be that preceptive.  What I cannot understand is, faced with substantial opposition, why they insist on bringing this proposal forward.

Wonder if the majority work some digital mode?
Logged
W2VW
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3489


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2005, 03:16:51 PM »

Quote from: Art
Pete,
I am confused, help me . . The ARRL says their plan cannot work without the good will of amateurs, that ops do not operate in areas occupied by others *voluntarily*, that a band plan will need to be developed that will require cooperation . . .  crazy as it may seem, I totally agree. But, but, weren't these the very same things that I was told couldn't be attained? That amateurs were too juvenile, self centered, and irresponsible to base any proposal on such premises??? QTF OM
Huh??


The unfortunate difference is that FCC will be expected to cite the ARRL bandplan in enforcement notices and sanctions as they already do on VHF.
Logged
Art
Guest
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2005, 04:09:45 PM »

so the FCC would be citing ARRL 'law' . . . the obvious question is; expected by whom?

-ap
Logged
W2VW
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3489


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2005, 04:18:48 PM »

Quote from: Art
so the FCC would be citing ARRL 'law' . . . the obvious question is; expected by whom?

-ap


Both ARRL and FCC. Have you read past enforcement notices where the VHF uncoordinated get the business?
Logged
Art
Guest
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2005, 05:43:37 PM »

Ahh, my mistake, I didn't realize the coordination comittees were ARRL. I have heard of uncoordinated repeaters being held accountable for interference to coordinated stations.

-ap
Logged
W2VW
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3489


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2005, 06:12:08 PM »

We now return to your regularly scheduled ARRL sucks VS. ARRL doesn't suck program.
Logged
Jack-KA3ZLR-
Guest
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2005, 06:16:28 PM »

Aren't we Supposed to Bow or Kneel or sumthin.. Cheesy
Logged
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10062



« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2005, 08:27:43 PM »

Quote
Significantly, the Board also agreed that maximum permitted bandwidth should be defined in terms of necessary rather than occupied bandwidth.

I think that is an improvement over the original proposal.  If I interpret it correctly, "necessary bandwidth" means the minimum nominal bandwidth for the mode.  In the case of slopbucket, 3 or 3.5 k~ of necessary bandwidth defines the mode, since it requires at least that much bandwidth,  but doesn't specifically restrict the actual bandwidth used ("occupied bandwidth").

Quote
The ARRL proposal would leave two important FCC rules unchanged. 97.307(a) says: "No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice." 97.101(a) reads: "In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and good amateur practice."

That would allow greater bandwidth resulting from higher frequency components in the modulating signal, but would restrict bandwidth resulting from splatter.

While these changes are positive, there is no reason to specify 3.5 k~ or 9k~.  A "protected" band segment for CW and other narrowband modes could be created by defining a necessary bandwidth of 350~, and simply say that below a certain frequency, say 3550 in the 80m band, signals are limited to those of a necessary bandwidth of 350~ or less.  Above that frequency, bandwidth would be limited to " no more than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice."

There is no reason to arbitrarily set the limit of all modes to slopbucket standards.  This would also eliminate the necessity of the 9 k~ "exemption" for AM, and ISB would not be prohibited in the process.

The League has always maintained that it was opposed to removing any incumbant privileges during rulemaking proceedings.  The fact is, ISB is now permitted, and even though they say no-one is using it, making it illegal would clearly be a loss of privilege. I recall back in the 70's that was one of the often-cited justifications for eliminating AM - "amateurs were not using it anymore."

It makes no sense to make something illegal because no one is doing it.

I could live with the League proposal if it were reduced to reserving a small segment at the bottom end of each band to modes with a necessary bandwidth of 350~ or less, and otherwise eliminating subbands both by emission mode and licence class above that frequency.
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7917


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2005, 09:30:59 PM »

Quote from: Art
Pete,
I am confused, help me . . The ARRL says their plan cannot work without the good will of amateurs, that ops do not operate in areas occupied by others *voluntarily*, that a band plan will need to be developed that will require cooperation . . .  crazy as it may seem, I totally agree.


You're about as confused as I am. Under the ARRL plan, there is a separation of analog and digital modes as defined by bandwidth. Under your plan, there is no separation which could result in less effective use of our bands and more adjacent frequency interference. The ARRL has always maintained that additional or modified band plans would need to be developed with this proposal. And, the modified or additional band plans would be applied to the specific analog and digital areas. FCC enforcement  would control non-authorized migration of modes into areas where they have no legal right to operate there.
As I said somewhere earlier, analog and digital modes are not compatible operating in the same arena. They cannot communicate with each other. With gentleman or voluntary band plans, that have no legal teeth, you can be accused of not being a gentleman, but you can't be cited for a violation unless your interference is intentional. Since you can't communicate with each other, and maybe not even hear the other station, it would be difficult to prove intent.

Quote
But, but, weren't these the very same things that I was told couldn't be attained? That amateurs were too juvenile, self centered, and irresponsible to base any proposal on such premises??? QTF OM
?????


You should ask the person who stated those descriptors.
Logged

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

Offline Offline

Posts: 7917


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2005, 09:40:19 PM »

Quote from: W1DAN
Hi All:

I am saddened by this event.
I do not know what the public comment percentage for and against is, but I feel the problem could be handled more scientifically.
I get the feeling there will be interference between modes.

Lucky my AM set meets the 9kc reccomendation!

73
Dan
W1DAN


Dan, I'm curious; your statement, "I get the feeling there will be interference between modes"

What modes? Phone guys haven't lost anything (AM to 9 KHz, SSB to 3.5 KHz(probably to satisify the ESSB guys). CW guys haven't lost anything. Digtial modes now have a dedicated slice of several bands separate from the phone activity.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Art
Guest
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2005, 07:02:34 AM »

OK Pete. I was condensing and adding my interpretation of the many comments I received that roughly indicated hams wouldn't behave in a civil manner if allowed to operate in an environment that required cooperation. All of the terms I used were, indeed, used at one time or another to describe amateur radio operators. Notably, you did not use these terms so you are absolutely right to send me back to the source.

Dave,
I was uncomfortable with our repeater coordination exchange so I contacted a friend at SCRA. They provided repeater coordination for the southern California area when I owned a repeater there. They are affiliated with the ARRL as a club but not controlled by the ARRL. The coordinations are done on a voluntary basis and the repeater operators are held to the assignments by the FCC if issues arise.
Whether the ARRL sucks or not has little to do with the coordination, in fact, the ARRL provides nothing to the process, except the ARRL uses the information to populate their repeater directory.


Art
Logged
Art
Guest
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2005, 07:25:50 AM »

Oh yes, the analog vs digital cannot live together thing . . . if there is a signal on the frequency in question good amateur practice would be to avoid transmitting on top of the signal in analog or digital or TBD modes. We are not channel cops, we simply have to share the resources effectively. Regulations do not accomplish this. People will interfere and fail to ID whether the regulations are in place or not. Good ops will be courteous and avoid or QSY if unintentional interference occurs. Therefore, the regulations will only restrict the very people who don't require them.
I read empassioned pleas to preserve the CW exclusive area because they  are the best behaved of our lot. I do not feel the behavior cited by the CW supporters is unique to them. I also feel good ops who use SSB, or PSK, or SSTV should be free to find a clear spot on the band as well at their discretion and utilizing good operating practice.

The good news is the ARRL plan has improved. Now bandwidth is specified as the minimum amount required. As nebulous and restrictive as this could be, it is an improvement. I would be much more on board if we simply eliminated the bandwidth mode specification, eliminated the sub bands, and retained the statement referring to good amateur practice.

I think of the two 'public servants' who previously petitioned the FCC to constrain modes by bandwidth and the hew and cry that attended their concept and think the ARRL plan is 'same stuff different day'.

I'm confident some in the FCC share this view as well . . .

-ap
Logged
Glenn K2KL
Guest
« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2005, 01:23:47 PM »

I think bend over is more like it! Roll Eyes

"Thank you sir may I have another!!"


Aren't we Supposed to Bow or Kneel or sumthin.. Cheesy
Logged
wk3c
Guest
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2005, 11:18:25 PM »

Hi All:

I am saddened by this event.

I do not know what the public comment percentage for and against is, but I feel the problem could be handled more scientifically.

I get the feeling there will be interference between modes.

Lucky my AM set meets the 9kc reccomendation!

73
Dan
W1DAN

For the record here, I have publicly stated that, had I been on the ARRL Board at the July meeting, I would NOT have voted for this "plan."

I understand the *intent* which is to allow more flexible adoption of new modes as they become available, however, I have YET to find a SINGLE ham who isn't unhappy with the proposal in its current form.

That tells me it's "broken" and needs to either be fixed or abandoned.

I think it *may* be fixable, with a little bit of flexibility and compromise from the various factions/interest groups with our ranks, but it's not there yet.

I think on something as complex as bandplans, it will be impossible to please 100% of the population.  However, I think that if ALL of the interest groups can be "brought to the table" and they are willing to "give and take a bit," it might be possible to arrive at a solution that could get at least a significant majority to say "It's not perfect in my ideal world, but I can live with it and I'll sign up to support it."  Again, we're not there yet.

73,
Carl - wk3c
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7917


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2005, 02:00:03 PM »


For the record here, I have publicly stated that, had I been on the ARRL Board at the July meeting, I would NOT have voted for this "plan."

I understand the *intent* which is to allow more flexible adoption of new modes as they become available, however, I have YET to find a SINGLE ham who isn't unhappy with the proposal in its current form.

That tells me it's "broken" and needs to either be fixed or abandoned.

I think it *may* be fixable, with a little bit of flexibility and compromise from the various factions/interest groups with our ranks, but it's not there yet.

I think on something as complex as bandplans, it will be impossible to please 100% of the population.  However, I think that if ALL of the interest groups can be "brought to the table" and they are willing to "give and take a bit," it might be possible to arrive at a solution that could get at least a significant majority to say "It's not perfect in my ideal world, but I can live with it and I'll sign up to support it."  Again, we're not there yet.

73,
Carl - wk3c
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c


Carl:
Since you stated above, " had I been on the ARRL Board at the July meeting, I would NOT have voted for this "plan", what is your position on the plan that has already been filed on June 20, 2005 with the FCC that calls for spectrum deregulation in the amateur service. The full petition can be viewed here:

Petition For Spectrum Deregulation in the Amateur Service
[/b]
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
wk3c
Guest
« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2005, 08:29:49 PM »


For the record here, I have publicly stated that, had I been on the ARRL Board at the July meeting, I would NOT have voted for this "plan."

I understand the *intent* which is to allow more flexible adoption of new modes as they become available, however, I have YET to find a SINGLE ham who isn't unhappy with the proposal in its current form.

That tells me it's "broken" and needs to either be fixed or abandoned.

I think it *may* be fixable, with a little bit of flexibility and compromise from the various factions/interest groups with our ranks, but it's not there yet.

I think on something as complex as bandplans, it will be impossible to please 100% of the population.  However, I think that if ALL of the interest groups can be "brought to the table" and they are willing to "give and take a bit," it might be possible to arrive at a solution that could get at least a significant majority to say "It's not perfect in my ideal world, but I can live with it and I'll sign up to support it."  Again, we're not there yet.

73,
Carl - wk3c
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c


Carl:
Since you stated above, " had I been on the ARRL Board at the July meeting, I would NOT have voted for this "plan", what is your position on the plan that has already been filed on June 20, 2005 with the FCC that calls for spectrum deregulation in the amateur service. The full petition can be viewed here:

Petition For Spectrum Deregulation in the Amateur Service
[/b]


I do NOT support of "rampant phone band expansion" at the expense of CW, and all of the digital modes.

By the standards applied to any other radio service, our bands are, with the possible exception of some very popular contest weekends, grossly underutilized.

I have nothing against contesting, per se, but my personal observations lead me to conclude that the problems on contest weekends are not exactly caused by the contests themselves, but more by the bad behavior of some, but not all, contestors who are FAR too competitive and frequently downright rude and using poor operating practices.

73,
Carl - wk3c
Logged
Art
Guest
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2005, 06:49:45 PM »

If phone is the most popular mode, why wouldn't it be accorded the most spectrum?
If cw is, by design or otherwise, declining, why would exclusive allocation still be accorded it?
Or, what if we allocated all spectrum to all modes and allowed operation in accord with, and with reinforcement of, existing non interference rules?
Do you really believe an extra class licensee is going to run SSB or AM in the bottom 25kc of a band?
Do you really believe any mode should have preferential treatment in the face of declining or, in the case of some digital modes, minimal interest?
If a QSO is not in process on a given frequency why wouldn't we use it in whatever manner or mode we are licensed to operate?

These are all questions rather than statements for a reason. If you have solid reasons for your position I am most interested. If you are repeating the mantra of fear and anarchy, or protection of CW . . . I have heard it and disagree.

-ap
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2005, 10:27:52 PM »

When was rampant expansion of the phone band (or any band) proposed?
Logged
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4362


« Reply #24 on: October 04, 2005, 02:29:13 PM »

Carl:
Quote
By the standards applied to any other radio service, our bands are, with the possible exception of some very popular contest weekends, grossly underutilized.

I do NOT support of "rampant phone band expansion" at the expense of CW, and all of the digital modes.

Good question Steve ! Where was "rampant" expansion ever suggested Huh

Carl, you say the bands are "grossly underutilized" but oppose the expansion of the most popular mode of operation. CW will not be lost "at the expense of" phone modes. It is declining all by itself.

Further, the FCC doesn't need an ARRL BANDPLAN to guide its enforcement. Particularly when the success of the bandplan is dependant on "good operating practices". Why not just enforce the good operating practice clause and forego all the unnecessary extra restrictions Huh

Art is right.. the success of the ARRL plan is based on the exact thing some say "THE OTHER" plan is doomed by.


Logged
Pages: [1]   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 0.086 seconds with 18 queries.