In Absentia: Pete, WA2CWA

[WA3VJB]

You may have noticed that our man Pete, WA2CWA, has been missing for months from moderating the ARRL Forum on amfone.net and that his departure was without really explaining himself.

However, I'm happy to report he continues to be the standard-bearer for the group in Newington, based on encounters we see on QRZ.com, an email-based "AM Reflector," and probably other places where he still participates.

Geez Pete, we thought we were your favorite battleground...

------------------------
TO BRING YOU UP TO DATE

December 7th posting I made to the AM Reflector, in response to a query as to why the FCC site doesn't show the Petition.

PJ,

You won't find the bandwidth scheme in the FCC public
record because it has not been accepted for action.
It's possible the document may be rejected outright,
without public comment, for technical flaws or from
strong oppostion filings that compel the agency to
reject it out of hand.

The group in Newington has posted its proposal on its
website however, and you can find it there.

Paul/VJB

----------------------------


    Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:16:50 -0800 (PST)

Paul and Everyone-

I am a former ARRL Rocky Mountain Division
Vice-Director who served two terms (1990-1994). My
main issue with any League proposal is that they do
not site research through membership and/or Amateur
Radio community surveys for their rule-making
petitions. They also are usually the same on other
Board, Executive committee reasoning's and decision
making. As a League member since 1969 and Life Member
since 1976 I feel that my membership plague makes me a
sort of stockholder. How about more emphasis on ARRL
membership surveys on these issues? Even magazines
like CQ are more into that than the ARRL. The answer
has been obvious since the League was founded in 1914.
Keep the control behind the doors of their meetings in
their own hands. Sorry if this upsets anyone but I
have had the pleasure of looking at it on the inside
out for four years. I however have chosen to stick by
them only because they are the only national
organization to represent us of it's kind. It does not
mean I disagree with everything they do. I certainly
do agree they could have done better than the
regulation by bandwidth proposal as it now stands.
Especially when it comes to the long-term classic,
traditional modes like AM.



Best 73's,

Bob K5SEP
Kilowatt Five Sporadic E Propagation

------------------------------------
 Thu, 8 Dec 2005 12:01:38


Hi Bob,
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm totally with you on the
need for Newington to poll its constituents BEFORE
acting on a major policy or regulatory proposal like
this one.

It's as if they're living in the days when the U.S.
needed an Electoral College for the White House,
because the "voters" were sometimes uneducated and
could not be expected to know the issues.

But people reply to the idea of representative
lobbying (and that's what the League is, despite what
they may tell you) by saying the election of
Directors, like yourself, is where the voters make
their decision. After that, the feeling goes,  it's up
to those Directors to develop and implement matters on
behalf of the greater Amateur community.

Too bad that system has been discredited by the
laundry list of bad moves that could have been avoided
by the leadership in Newington, had they only alllowed
popular opinion and asked some people for guidance on
what they should do.

(Um, BEFORE they go and do it, not as a blind email
box to send reaction to regarding matters that are
already decided, a-henh !)

Paul/VJB

----------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:27:24
From: peter markavage
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] ARRL bandwidth scheme not accepted
To: amradio@mailman.qth.net


Acceptance question:
Has the FCC provided an RM number to the sweeping amateur radio
proposal
your CTT group submitted in June05 that would have major ramifications
to
the amateur radio service? Do you ever plan to amend your proposal to
include the omissions in the license class tables where some license
classes actually lose privileges?
And where is this "blank" that you refer to (URL?) and why is this not
a
good thing?

Pete, wa2cwa

-------------

Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 17:56:58 -0500
From: peter markavage <manualman@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] ARRL bandwidth scheme not accepted
To: amradio@mailman.qth.net

VJB stated: Too bad that system has been discredited by the laundry
list
of bad moves that could have been avoided by the leadership in
Newington,
had they only alllowed popular opinion and asked some people for
guidance
on what they should do.
> (Um, BEFORE they go and do it, not as a blind email
> box to send reaction to regarding matters that are
> already decided, a-henh !)
>
> Paul/VJB

My Director spoke to me, and a number of others, at several hamfests to
solicit our opinions on the proposal well before it was made public. My
understanding was that the Directors and Vice-Directors were encouraged
to seek out input after the digital committee submitted its report.
Shame
on your Director if he didn't talk to you. Did you vote for him?

The blind email box was up and running for over a year before the final
proposal went to the FCC. There were a number of changes made from the
initial proposal to the final one.

How many amateurs did you solicit comments from before you submitted
your
proposal? I see your proposal has a section on "views considered" from
QRZ postings, but did you really go out and solicit comments and
reactions to your tentative proposal before you issued it? I see no
record of that.

Let's set the record straight.

Pete, wa2cwa

------------------

Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:19:51 -0600
From: W5OMR/Geoff <w5omr@satx.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] ARRL bandwidth scheme not accepted
To: Discussion of AM Radio <amradio@mailman.qth.net>


>How many amateurs did you solicit comments from before you submitted
your
>proposal? I see your proposal has a section on "views considered" from
>QRZ postings, but did you really go out and solicit comments and
>reactions to your tentative proposal before you issued it? I see no
>record of that.
>
>Let's set the record straight.
>

Gentlemen, Gentleman... who cares about the record?  Let's stick to the
subject at hand.

AFTER this subject has it's final outcome, whatever that is, -THEN- you
can argue semantics.

Let's us -at least- remember that this is OUR hobby.  WE are in it,
together.  Let's US work toward that end, shall we?


---
73 = Best Regards,
-Geoff/W5OMR

-----------------------

Fri, 9 Dec 2005 05:28:25 -0800 (PST)
From:   "VJB"
To:   amradio@mailman.qth.net

Pete, WA2CWA is using a tactic often seen when
criticism backs someone against the wall -- he uses a
distracting topic to try to steer the conversation
away from the subject at hand.

The proposal I helped write (to which he has referred)
has been comprehensively vetted after the group I was
involved with this past summer filed it as a Petition
with the FCC and published it in the same venues where
Pete participates.

We have been receptive to support and criticism, and
both are appreciated, have been responded to, and
remain registered in how we will move forward should
the FCC accept the proposal for formal Comment.

None of that has to do with our collective review here
and elsewhere of the bandwidth scheme that more
recently came from the group in Newington, unless of
course Pete, in his mind, has elevated the stature of
the seven-member Communications Think Tank to the same
level as the publishing, membership and subscription
group known as the ARRL.

In that case, thanks for the compliment.

To bring us back to the subject matter we are
discussing today, I again submit this nugget I found
penned by Mike, W8MW and posted to one of the threads
on QRZ.com  He has summed up very well the sentiment
against the League's proposal that Pete, and a few
others, are failing to defend on its own merits.

Paul/VJB



Mike W8MW said --


IMHO, attempts to tweak the league's petition cannot
mitigate the flawed process that produced a biased
plan.  Among the many mis-steps of the digital
committee, they took it upon themselves to mingle in
the operating interests of legacy mode operators.  A
handful of individuals not sharing these interests is
intent on placing new restrictions on them.  I see
this as arrogance to the extreme from those
individuals and a serious lapse in stewardship by the
league.  So now there's a petition seeking to regulate
us all, based on the views of a few and lacking
benefit of a fair and reasonable process involving all
stakeholders.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Actually, never departed anywhere, but have been busy with a number of other projects. I still followed all the threads regularly, as time permitted. Hopefully, after the 1st of the year, I'll have more time to vent in print. Thanks for the chuckle.

[WA3VJB]

Glad it worked for you, Pete.
I'll look forward to your vent.

Meantime, we will continue until you have time to join us again.
----

Date:    Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:35:40 +0000
Paul,
 
You are a remarkably eloqent and articulate individual and I support much of what you champion with regard to the ARRL and their sometimes misguided actions.  I guess what bothers me, and apparently some others who have commented on the discussion, is the bickering that goes on between those who should be on the same side of the issue.  I think the bandwidth proposal might have had some merit if it equally represented the various interest groups within the hobby.  Unfortunately, like with any group, it is very difficult to arrive at any concensus when there are so many different niches represented under the banner of amateur radio.  I hope that we can come up with enough agreement and interest in the common good to overcome some of the conflict.  Such issues as BPL and the constant attack on our precious frequencies may be even more of a threat than our internal fights over how best to allocate our assigned spectrum.
 
I have wondered for a long time if it might be wise to ask for specific allocations in the bands for AM operation.  Probably, however, even if the so-called windows were officially recognized, we would still be faced with the QRMers and the hecklers.  I guess it just goes with the territory.
 
73,  Jack, W9GT

> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:47:01 -0800 (PST)
> From: VJB
> Subject: ARRL Bandwidth Plan
> To: amradio@mailman.qth.net
>
> Jack, thank you.
>
> Pete and I had a separate and direct email exchange
> underway, and I feel there's no bad blood.
>
> I really dislike confrontation. I prefer
> collaboration, and it's my nature to spend a lot of
> time making sure the other guy feels like he's
> getting
> heard -- in addition to making sure I actually
> understand what he's saying.
>
> We could fill a book with the societal problems
> displayed in ham radio. The hobby is tracking rather
> faithfully the general decline in society at large.
>
> Unfortunately, the last remaining institution that
> might have served as a restraining, stabilizing, and
> positive/nurturing influence has abdicated the role.
>
> The reasons are complex, but mostly seem rooted in a
> failure to keep up with the cool stuff in the hobby,
> while being stubbornly loyal to the way it was
> always
> done.
>
> Now, it's too late to stem a major loss in support
> (they really are down to about 20 percent
> representation, by their own official figures), and
> their confused and haphazard leadership behaves as
> if
> it is very scared of the future.
>
> So now they've overreacted and are embracing the
> novelty of "digital" peddled to society by
> commercial
> interests (HDTV, cellphones, IPods), but for the
> hobby
> via a charismatic leader who is pushing a specific
> digital hookup between ham radio and the Internet.
>
> The group who spawned this proposal further
> corrupted
> the already shaky political process the League has
> chronically failed to repair. This would include the
> longstanding lack of published criteria for such "ad
> hoc" committees employed over the years to shape the
> leadership's decision-making.
>
> I hate being a negative, pain-in-the-ass about their
> system, but their methods are not doing anyone any
> good, and their bandwidth scheme is only the latest
> example of faulty product from a defective system.
>
> I have to have faith the FCC will see it the same
> way
> and toss it out.
>
> There **are** many niches, specialties, and minority
> operating interests in the hobby.  I am of like-mind
> with your view we really must pull together and
> minimize these little turf wars.
>
> The problem remains that the approach the League
> took
> foments just that kind of infighting.
>
> The best answer, for the meantime, is to fight
> efforts
> to give what most people would consider an unfair
> advantage to one category of activity,
> inappropriately
> using the regulatory structure besides.
>
> After that, if there's still a stomach to radically
> change what we now have, perhaps a group will
> coalesce
> out of various "special interests" including the AM
> community, to step around the League and forge a
> more
> viable approach in a process that would yield
> voluntary, broadbased support.
>
> The ARRL's leadership really needs to be smacked
> around on this one so they will sit down at a table
> not their own and honestly take part on a lateral,
> evenhanded basis with other, more active and
> involved
> groups and individuals representing all our
> activities
> at the outset.
>
> For something of this magnitude, that's not an
> unreasonable plan.
>
> Paul

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Is there a reason for re-posting AMRadio reflector discussions here.
What's the point; they can go to the AMRadio archives on QSL.net and read them and  really, who cares. Seems like silly wasted energy.

[W5AMI]

Is there a reason for re-posting AMRadio reflector discussions here.
What's the point; they can go to the AMRadio archives on QSL.net and read them and  really, who cares. Seems like silly wasted energy.

Only members of the AMRadio list can view the archives.  There are a lot of members here that are not members of the list.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Is there a reason for re-posting AMRadio reflector discussions here.
What's the point; they can go to the AMRadio archives on QSL.net and read them and  really, who cares. Seems like silly wasted energy.

Only members of the AMRadio list can view the archives.  There are a lot of members here that are not members of the list.

Good point. I forgot the archives were locked. But, what's the point; These are not earth shattering discussions, unless the intent is to try and stir the masses here.

[Art]

"unless the intent is to try and stir the masses here"

Yes Pete. When one wishes to convey that the masses elsewhere are articulating an opinion and the masses here are possibly less informed, it seems a reasonable approach.

Speaking of stirring masses: Would resignation from the ARRL by the life members who feel poorly represented make a difference to the ARRL? 20%-L=?

-ap

[K1MVP]

Is there a reason for re-posting AMRadio reflector discussions here.
What's the point; they can go to the AMRadio archives on QSL.net and read them and  really, who cares. Seems like silly wasted energy.

Only members of the AMRadio list can view the archives.  There are a lot of members here that are not members of the list.

Good point. I forgot the archives were locked. But, what's the point; These are not earth shattering discussions, unless the intent is to try and stir the masses here.

"stir the masses"??--thats a "new one",--how about "informing the masses" instead
of the "secret approach" of pushing the digital agenda behind closed doors, and
"we may just be able to slide this one in" approach.

                                            73, K1MVP

[Art]

Pete,

My apologies, I jumped on you . . . unnecessarily . . . your comment was too similar to others I have seen who disagree with a position being presented but have little more than accusations and recriminations about the *way* the information was presented as a rebuttal.

-ap

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

I don't see how Pete posting on any other forum constitutes a secret agenda. Posting stuff from other forums here is usually of dubious value. Go there and join the discussion, or start an original thread here.

[K1JJ]

Hola Pete! [/color]

I was wondering what happened to you.

Let's get on 6M again soon. I enjoyed our chat the last time... actually a good DX. Your Yagi and big tower does the job for you, OM.

We've got a good NE group that hangs on 50.150 at night.  Please drop by.



T

[K1MVP]

I don't see how Pete posting on any other forum constitutes a secret agenda. Posting stuff from other forums here is usually of dubious value. Go there and join the discussion, or start an original thread here.

Ok Steve,--I am not referring to Pete, in discussing these issues "in secret"
Pete has been very honest AND upright in discussing these issues on this
and other forums.--And while I may not agree with his positions, I respect
him for his opinions and the courage and "guts" to voice them.

My reference, was to the way these "digital" bandplans seem to be
thrust upon the ham community at large by the ARRL.
This plus the "restructuring" proposals, and the issue with BPL which
have been discussed here and on many other forums, which seem
to be "jammed" down the ham`s  throats.

It now appears,(and the ink is not even dry) on the new bandplan
proposal that the digital crowd is concerned about the "am exemption".

It makes one really wonder, if there is not a "real digital agenda" that
is being proposed, and that the "am exemption" may be just a short
term "pacifier" until the "powers that be" get their foot in the door,
and after the door is fully open,--just conveniently eliminate the
am exemption.

Hope this helps explain my previous post.
                                         
                                 73, K1MVP
   
 

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

10-4

It's ironic that the ARRL, a group said to represent a communications service, has such problems communicating with its membership.