ARRL Bandwidth Petition - When the Time is Right - Not Right Away

[Pete, WA2CWA]

If you don't get QST, ARRL's Dave Sumner's editorial, "It Seems to Us..." Self Regulation, is now on the ARRL Web site. You can read the complete editorial here:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/features/2005/10/01/1/?nc=1

Part of what Dave said:
"But to be honest, our internal processes are not as effective as they should be and need to be improved. The ARRL Board clearly acknowledged this in July. The minutes of the meeting (which are available online) show that the last in a series of proposed amendments to the "bandwidth petition" motion was to add the following language: "It is specifically understood that ARRL will promptly undertake a procedure to establish a band plan to be utilized with the proposed subband allocation petition, and until such time as that band plan is in place the existing band plan will be in force." This amendment was adopted unanimously.

When the ARRL Executive Committee decides the time is right--certainly not right away--a petition will be submitted to the FCC requesting rules changes reflecting the Board's decisions. But we do not have to wait to begin discussing improvements to the process of reviewing and revising band plans. Such processes must be international in scope, because radio signals do not respect borders. They must be transparent. They must be open to broad participation and full representation. They should favor and encourage consensus-building over straight up-or-down votes, but at the same time must lead to decisions being made and not to interminable debates without resolution."

My Wonderings about the above highlighted statements??

I wonder how they are going to gather the input for this?

I wonder how one determines when the time is right. What has to happen, and/or get into place, before it moves forward.

[Jim, W5JO]

What I wonder about Pete is why the ARRL thinks it represents all of amateur radio and proposes a band plan at all?

I remember Riley sending a letter to about 3 hams concerning their operation on  160 meters.  They had violated the "BAND PLAN".  Someone pointed out that the band plan wasn't in the rule book and he followed with letters saying to disregard his first. 

Now is your opportunity to explain to me why these guys think they speak for all radio amateurs including those overseas?  To me this is more than a bit presumptious.  I still think the whole thing is hogwash and they aren't smart enough to listen to anyone but their cronies in the digital group.

Do we need to hire T Boone Pickens and foster a hostile take over of the ARRL to get them to listen?

[David, K3TUE]

What I wonder about Pete is why the ARRL thinks it represents all of amateur radio and proposes a band plan at all?

[...] Someone pointed out that the band plan wasn't in the rule book and he followed with letters saying to disregard his first. 

As far as I am concerned, if it is not in the FCC part 97 rule book, I don't see why it is a rule.  But I think there is ruling precident where the FCC has sided with the ARRL and their refineries of the rules (eg. bandplan, repeater coordination, etc.)

The ARRL though, as as much right to vie to be our representatives with the FCC as any other group.  Historically there have been more.  If you do not wish for them to be so, then you have to take the time to express your opinions and proposals to the FCC youself.  This though, AFAIK, is no small feat, considering their conventions and processes.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

What I wonder about Pete is why the ARRL thinks it represents all of amateur radio and proposes a band plan at all?

I look at the ARRL as a collective voice of its membership. However, I’m sure they look for support on issues outside their membership. When you’re the majority member organization in the Service, you can present proposals with a little more clout. I don’t recall reading anywhere where they state they represent all amateurs. However, depending on their proposals, or anyone else’s proposals for that matter, that get blessed and made into law by the FCC, all amateurs might be impacted.

There is an existing band plan "in effect" currently. Go here to see if you comply:
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html

I remember Riley sending a letter to about 3 hams concerning their operation on  160 meters.  They had violated the "BAND PLAN".  Someone pointed out that the band plan wasn't in the rule book and he followed with letters saying to disregard his first.

It thought it was 2 meters. Several guys were in a rag chew on 146.52 MHz the "National Calling Frequency". Riley thought there was an FCC rule outlawing QSO's on 146.52.

Now is your opportunity to explain to me why these guys think they speak for all radio amateurs including those overseas?  To me this is more than a bit presumptious.  I still think the whole thing is hogwash and they aren't smart enough to listen to anyone but their cronies in the digital group.

Do we need to hire T Boone Pickens and foster a hostile take over of the ARRL to get them to listen?

"explain to me why these guys think they speak for all radio amateurs including those overseas"  I really have no idea what you are talking about with this statement. ARRL has membership all over the world but I see nothing that says they speak for all amateurs including those overseas, foreign countries, etc. Foreign Countries have their own "amateur radio" rules and regulations.

[Jim, W5JO]

I look at the ARRL as a collective voice of its membership. However, I’m sure they look for support on issues outside their membership. When you’re the majority member organization in the Service, you can present proposals with a little more clout. I don’t recall reading anywhere where they state they represent all amateurs. However, depending on their proposals, or anyone else’s proposals for that matter, that get blessed and made into law by the FCC, all amateurs might be impacted.

There is an existing band plan "in effect" currently. Go here to see if you comply:
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html


It thought it was 2 meters. Several guys were in a rag chew on 146.52 MHz the "National Calling Frequency". Riley thought there was an FCC rule outlawing QSO's on 146.52.


"explain to me why these guys think they speak for all radio amateurs including those overseas"  I really have no idea what you are talking about with this statement. ARRL has membership all over the world but I see nothing that says they speak for all amateurs including those overseas, foreign countries, etc. Foreign Countries have their own "amateur radio" rules and regulations.

This is an artful dodge to the issure Pete.  The response reminds me of someone who cannot see over the horizon.  What gets to me is the organization is almost like a secret society.  The directors seem to just magically acquire an issue and push it without anyone outside the board room  having any influence.

I have tried (as a dues paying member) to influence my director.  While I receive a replay to my queries, his answer is one of condecendance, as if I don't know the subject or my views are not appreciated.  This bunch reminds me of the Emperor's Clothes.

When was the last time they had a membership drive.  When did they mail or call non-members asking them to join the organization?  When did they accept opinions other than their own with grace and dignity?    I have seen others on this board post responses they received from their directors and the responses were almost nasty or embarassing. 

At least my director wasn't nasty to me, just trite.  When will they present subjects such as this to the membership and solicit an answer.  At least the FCC gives the public who will be affected a chance to comment.  With the ARRL, you almost have to shove it down their throats.  Not good representation.

[Paul, K2ORC]

Reading this thread opens, yet again, the subject of the disconnect that some members of the ARRL say they feel when they deal with League policy makers and administrators.  It also adds further to the disgust that anti-ARRL amateurs say they feel for an organization they dub arrogant and shortsighted.

Parenthetically, I've experienced what Jim's mentioned: short, dismissive boilerplate responses to concerns addressed to my Director and Vice Director.  In fact, in two instances, after input was requested by the League generally, I got nothing at all back from my Directorl.  Let me add that in all my correspondence with the League and its Directors and officers, I maintain a friendly and non-confrontational tone.  Maybe that's where I've gone wrong.

Anyway, I noted with interest Dave Sumner's statement about the need for transparency as the ARRL develops its bandplan.  Of course this proceeds from his assumption that there's a need for a bandplan in the first place.  It reminds me somehow of the guy who having torched a building then expects to be proclaimed a hero for putting out the blaze. 

The problem with this is that Dave Sumner is proceeding from a point well down the road from the place where the League ought to have been gathering members' input.  The bandwidth proposal, and the future bandplan that would be the other half of the act, ought not to have gotten to this point without the League having first pursued in depth the thoughts and opinions of the amateur radio community as a whole.  This proposal will, if the FCC goes for it, alter the terrain considerably and affect everyone with a license. 

If there was a canvasing for opinions and ideas that led to the bandwidth proposal, it must have been undertaken on a pretty limited scale.  I haven't talked to anyone outside the digital committee, whose work apparently was the genesis for the proposal, who was ever asked for input on the matter.  The proposal was developed, and after that input was asked for, with the understanding that the ARRL was going forward with it no matter what. 

The responses to members' input that I've heard about was abysmal. In my own experience it amounted to a cursory "Thanks for communicating with us on this important matter.  73" 

This was a bad misstep when trying to float a proposal as far reaching as this one would be.  Alas, rather than recognizing that fact now and starting over, it seems to me as though Dave Sumner, et al, are trying to rehabilitate themselves by starting in the middle.  Now the ARRL is saying that they want to gain input (read, support?) for what it seems like many amateurs in this country feel is a fundamentally flawed proposal.  I say "many amateurs" based upon the discussions I've read on bulletin boards and heard on the air. 

[Pete, WA2CWA]

This is an artful dodge to the issure Pete.  The response reminds me of someone who cannot see over the horizon.  What gets to me is the organization is almost like a secret society.  The directors seem to just magically acquire an issue and push it without anyone outside the board room  having any influence.

Then maybe you should share with us what you see over the horizon.

I belong to a number of organizations and many times not made privy to what goes on behind the scenes.

I have tried (as a dues paying member) to influence my director.  While I receive a replay to my queries, his answer is one of condecendance, as if I don't know the subject or my views are not appreciated.  This bunch reminds me of the Emperor's Clothes.

Did you vote this Director into the position?

When was the last time they had a membership drive.  When did they mail or call non-members asking them to join the organization?  When did they accept opinions other than their own with grace and dignity?    I have seen others on this board post responses they received from their directors and the responses were almost nasty or embarassing.

When my son became a licensed amateur, he received a packet of info from the ARRL including membership info. Mailing or calling non-members is not cost effective. My Director always takes the time to listen to my opinions when we stop to talk at a hamfest. I've also seen him (and the Vice-Director) at club meetings taking the time to stop and discuss issues with other amateurs. Maybe the art of raising the issue with your Director is in the presentation.

At least my director wasn't nasty to me, just trite.  When will they present subjects such as this to the membership and solicit an answer.  At least the FCC gives the public who will be affected a chance to comment.  With the ARRL, you almost have to shove it down their throats.  Not good representation.

I'm not sure where you've been Jim. In the case of the bandwidth proposal, the ARRL has been soliciting comments since August 2004, either through your Director or directly by e-mail to the ARRL.

[WA3VJB]

Pete/CWA says:
"Mailing or calling non-members is not cost effective."

What's the economic equation for having pissed-off potential and former members?

The Newington group failed to establish an exchange of ideas or a discussion with its subscribers and others who would have been affected by this threatened bandwidth petition.

This failure took place at the outset and continued until the group decided to table their scheme until further notice.

Moreover, you've seen for yourself that the solicited comments were intended to support a pre-determined premise toward a mandatory bandwidth-based system of coordination. The most prominent evidence of this Sumner's editorial that said the feedback inspired certain, very limited, changes.

We have not seen a numerical tally of comments pro and con, nor have we seen any acknowledgment of comments telling the Newington group their premise is faulty. As you know, my comments sank without a trace.

[Jim, W5JO]

Then maybe you should share with us what you see over the horizon.

I belong to a number of organizations and many times not made privy to what goes on behind the scenes.

[
Did you vote this Director into the position?

When my son became a licensed amateur, he received a packet of info from the ARRL including membership info. Mailing or calling non-members is not cost effective. My Director always takes the time to listen to my opinions when we stop to talk at a hamfest. I've also seen him (and the Vice-Director) at club meetings taking the time to stop and discuss issues with other amateurs. Maybe the art of raising the issue with your Director is in the presentation.

I'm not sure where you've been Jim. In the case of the bandwidth proposal, the ARRL has been soliciting comments since August 2004, either through your Director or directly by e-mail to the ARRL.

Well Pete, interesting you asked some questions without making me feel as if I just crawled out from under a rock, almost.

What I see is a return to wideband communications like 1955/56 when I was licensed.  In those days, you could not find an empty spot on 80 or 20 meters.  Interestingly 40 was less crowded but full none the less.  The move to SSB was wholly supported by the ARRL to double the number of stations that could operate.  So we have had almost 4 decades of "narrow band communications" and now they are proposing wideband operation for one particular section of the amateur population...digital.

If it were not for the segration of CW and Phone, those guys would be all over the band.  Their proposal will lead to non phonecommunications in its present form provided all amateurs embrace the mode(s) that are being advanced.  Not only that, many unmonitored stations on automatic control would be operating, causing interference.  You realize they could easily filter out interference to their digital signals leaving us on phone to tolerate their transmissions.

If the ARRL truly wanted to foster open communications, then they should consider what Don, KYV has proposed here and other places.  Open the band to any kind of emission at the bandwidth that is efficient for the mode.  Drop band plans, they are nothing but protection for some group.  If the CW/digital/pactor group had to tolerate what we in the phone bands do, they would be beside themselves.  Regulate the bands as they do now, by good engineering practice rather than call for a standard that almost no one can meet.  This is like the RF exposure and PEP rules that only a handful of amateurs can decipher.  For the most part the current community cannot understand PEP and how to measure it as evidenced by the current thread on QRZ.  P= Esqrd./R and most people dont know how to arrive at R.

I did not get to vote for Coy, N5OK.  He was elected before I arrived in this division, but I have communicated with him.  On this proposal, I sent a detailed email concerning the proposal.  He sent an email back saying, "I will put you down as against it".  Brilliant use of the English Language.  The Vice Director was more engaged and eloquent than the Director. 

I haven't been in a cave or outhouse Pete.  I have expressed my opinions to Jim Hayne, who by the way, attends some of the hamfests I do, Hamcom, Belton, Texhoma.  He is much more attentive than my Director.  He at least answers questions without demeaning me or ignoring me.


I, too, received the same packet your son did Pete.  Everytime I renew, it comes and Yes it does provide information about how to contact your director.  I have done all those and I receive demeaning contrite answers to my emails.  I have to communicate in that fashion since I didn't even see him at the Oklahoma City Hamfest, the city where he lives.  What is wrong with this pricture?  I just wonder how many club meetings he has attended, since I have never seen a report from any of them that he was there.  Good place to solicit members, or am I wrong.  Why doesn't he have a booth at fests trying to solicit members? 

Come on Pete, don't defend in indefensible.  If you have any stroke with them, use it and build the orgainzation.  They do a lot right but in the membership and bull headness departments they fail miserablely.  Next time I am at a hamfest, I will check the throne room for the director.

[W3SLK]

Paul said:

The Newington group failed to establish an exchange of ideas or a discussion with its subscribers and others who would have been affected by this threatened bandwidth petition.

This failure took place at the outset and continued until the group decided to table their scheme until further notice.

That's because they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar! The Newington Clan felt they could run that stuff right through undetected. But they didn't count on one piece of important communications: The internet! Because the accessability of electronic medium, people, just like some of us on this board, were able to rally and submit counter proposals. When they thought they had a dying fire, it turned on them like one of those brush fires out in California. Now they claim, 'Well we didn't mean to do that right now!' What a crock-o-shit! Now they have to devise some other scheme to get THEIR AGENDA[/i] passed through. But in the mean time, they will use this as a stall tactic. I'll go back to my outhouse now.

[Art]

this is interesting . . . .

several camps . . . the 'it's your fault because you didn't communicate with the arrl' position is here as always . . . 'tail wagging the dog . . . . the anarchy and chaos fearful . . .  rules against interference already exist . . . we aren't kc kops . . . the fcc has the job of nailing miscreants and does well at it whether or not i can understand the id (or non id) of the interfering station . . .

i don't care if you use digital, cw, am, qpsk, yada yada,  or ssb . . . you are prohibited from transmitting over another qso . . . . just like on 60m  . . . it's simple, if someone is there don't tx . . . if condx change deal with it as adults . . . it works. . . .

as for the arrl . . . stating they are uninformed is the kindest we can be . . . certainly non representative of their membership and becoming less representative of amateur radio ops in general all the time . . . if i hadn't already paid my life membership i would quit . . .

-ap

[Pete, WA2CWA]

If there was a canvasing for opinions and ideas that led to the bandwidth proposal, it must have been undertaken on a pretty limited scale.  I haven't talked to anyone outside the digital committee, whose work apparently was the genesis for the proposal, who was ever asked for input on the matter.  The proposal was developed, and after that input was asked for, with the understanding that the ARRL was going forward with it no matter what. 

My Director talked to me, and a number of other amateurs, about it at a hamfest a number of months before the proposal was presented to ARRL members. He was tossing around ideas and issues and looking for input. I mentioned it here on the board several times. To me, this type of activity is what all Directors, Vice Directors, and even Section Managers should be doing to keep, at least the ARRL members informed in their areas.

[W3SLK]

Pete said:

My Director talked to me, and a number of other amateurs, about it at a hamfest a number of months before the proposal was presented to ARRL members. He was tossing around ideas and issues and looking for input. I mentioned it here on the board several times. To me, this type of activity is what all Directors, Vice Directors, and even Section Managers should be doing to keep, at least the ARRL members informed in their areas.

Well Pete, judging by everyone elses opinion of the (be)League(d), your director is more the exception than the rule!

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Pete said:

My Director talked to me, and a number of other amateurs, about it at a hamfest a number of months before the proposal was presented to ARRL members. He was tossing around ideas and issues and looking for input. I mentioned it here on the board several times. To me, this type of activity is what all Directors, Vice Directors, and even Section Managers should be doing to keep, at least the ARRL members informed in their areas.

Well Pete, judging by everyone elses opinion of the (be)League(d), your director is more the exception than the rule!

Yep! I guess we here in Hudson Division have been lucky over the last several years, but, in the past, we've had some very poor Directors and Vice Directors.