CTT Proposal is assigned an RM number by the FCC

[John Holotko]

Mr w8ji also fails to explain why he feels it is so important that 160 meters have mode segregated band plan.  Does he feel that  whatever phone is on 160 needs to be crammed into a narrow space. From what  I've heard of 160 it gets along quite well with no segregated  band plan.

[Art]

"If it is true that you get what you expect from life - "expect the worst and you won't be disappointed" or alternatively, "you get from life what you put into it" ("as ye sow, so shall ye reap" if you prefer the biblical equivalent). An internet search will provide countless cases of "thought structuring" an outcome in advance."

"It is understood by all that sloppiness, carelessness, waste, and indifference to the desires of others will be punished. Of course, the punishment is not physical, administered by a malevolent authority, but rather the punishment of not getting what one wants, or least not as much as one wants, because people have chosen to deal with others instead."

If you cannot relate to these quotes you cannot possibly feel comfortable with freedom and, peripherally, the CTT proposal. Ultimately, you will get what you expect, ARRL, CTT, or FCC mandate not withstanding.

Comments against the ARRL and CTT proposals far exceed comments for. And yet, the same people who comment against them complain about the state of the bands today, want to outlaw modes, want to exclude others from "their frequencies", and deride those who try to make even their world a better place.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

[W2VW]

I'm ordering some Nichrome wire first thing Monday.

[WD8BIL]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

No Art, you're not.

ie.... "Careful what you wish for. It may come true."

[W3SLK]

I dropped a line to Rich Measure about his 'arch enemy's' latest antics. To quote what he said, "Tom has a history of contradicting Tom.... (and) it's funny but in a sad way" Like Art said, you reap what you sow.

[w3jn]

He is rather the master of the ad hominem attack.  I am apparently excoriated because of the article I wrote on receivers that is posted on this site.  It appears that all he got from that article is that I am into "hifi AM".  Yep, Hammy, that's my ONLY interest in life...

It's interesting that he doesn't have a "contact me" link on his website.  Wonder why...?

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

If he posted the article without your permission, he is also a thief.

It's called projection. His life is clearly heavily intertwined with amateur radio. He is just projecting his emotions and views onto you. Once again, a product of emotional, convoluted and illogical thinking is shown by W8JI, (OK, I'm being kind calling it thinking). As Gary said, a sad result of the dumbing down of amateur radio.

[Glenn NY4NC]

That's pretty obvious... the only possible reason for someone suggesting a segregated band plan on 160 would be their fear of increased AM activity. (which has been the case these past couple of years)

I operate CW on 160 and everyone seems to be good about not operating phone in the lower 25khz segment even though it's legal....and on the other hand, CW ops don't operate above 1825... even though it's legal.
Cooperation between phone and CW operators on 160... it works...

Cooperation between SSB'ers and AM'ers on 160?....well.... how about a show of hands,,, how many time have you been jammed when attempting to carry on an AM QSO somewhere other than 1885 or 1985?

Mr w8ji also fails to explain why he feels it is so important that 160 meters have mode segregated band plan.  Does he feel that  whatever phone is on 160 needs to be crammed into a narrow space. From what  I've heard of 160 it gets along quite well with no segregated  band plan.

[John Holotko]

That's pretty obvious... the only possible reason for someone suggesting a segregated band plan on 160 would be their fear of increased AM activity. (which has been the case these past couple of years)

I operate CW on 160 and everyone seems to be good about not operating phone in the lower 25khz segment even though it's legal....and on the other hand, CW ops don't operate above 1825... even though it's legal.
Cooperation between phone and CW operators on 160... it works...

Cooperation between SSB'ers and AM'ers on 160?....well.... how about a show of hands,,, how many time have you been jammed when attempting to carry on an AM QSO somewhere other than 1885 or 1985?

Mr w8ji also fails to explain why he feels it is so important that 160 meters have mode segregated band plan.  Does he feel that  whatever phone is on 160 needs to be crammed into a narrow space. From what  I've heard of 160 it gets along quite well with no segregated  band plan.

Yes, I agree. It  appears that  w8ji has an intense fear of the phone modes and in particular  of AM. Thus rather than present real  data and real fact he has to resort to belittling the AM operator and the equipment  many of us use. What I find amazing is that he refers to our transmitters as old 1950's technology. Apparently he is unaware of class E  and the reality that many AM operators, myself included, actually incorporate a wide range of technologies, both old and modern state of the art. Many of us are well versed  in the old school i.e. heavy iron, vacume tubes, etc. as well as the new school, solid state, power MOSFETS,  digital signal processing, computers, and al the various maniffestations of todays high tech.  In that light the AM'ers are among on of the most  diverse and well versed groups spanning an extremely broad range of technologies from the old to the state of the art.

Stever/HUZ summed it up beautifully a few posts earlier where he gave a line byline synopsus of w8ji's claims and rants. The way he is clearly using the strawman  and worst case scenarios to generate FUD yet with no data or substance to back up  his claims.

And yes, gentlemans agreements and voluntaryband plans do work. Time has proven they work very well. It's ironic that w8ji calls for mandatory segregation of 160 meters yet 160 meters is a prime example of the fact that a mandatory FCC enforced  band plan is not needed.

John/N2IZE

[Paul, K2ORC]

Not to be outdone, the ARRL's website gives CTT some coverage.

Group petitions FCC to eliminate segregation of emission modes (Jan 12, 2006) -- A group calling itself the Communications Think Tank has filed a Petition for Rule Making asking the FCC "to discontinue mandatory segregation of emission modes and the activities using these modes in the Amateur Service." Instead, the petitioners would substitute "a voluntary system of coordination" on the bands. The FCC has designated the petition as RM-11305. Comments are due by February 6. The petitioners assert "there is a chronic need to allow greater leeway in selecting a place to operate" on the ham bands. "We propose ending mode-based subbands in the Amateur Radio Service, and we seek affirmation of established operator responsibility against interference as part of this request for greater latitude in frequency selection," the petitioners state. A survey, "An Analysis of Band Occupancy by Mode" accompanies the group's petition.

[WA3VJB]

That was sweet of them to mention what the FCC considers the counterpoint to the League's  proposal, a page or two down from where they've got theirs placed on the ARRL web page.

[nq5t]

It just goes to show you what "dumbing down" the hobby has done for us.

 I just read this crazy thing.  Frankly, I think we should beat both rotten ideas to death with the Wouff Hong.

With one, we get digital crap everywhere, and once someone notices the "exception", no AM.  WIth the other we simply get crap everywhere.

This "self-regulation" thing is a farce.  We are able to do it now, somewhat, because there's an over-reaching framework.  Without the framework, we'll just have anarchy.

What the h*ll were we thinkin'  ?

[KL7OF]

quote]

 What the h*ll were we thinkin'  ?

I wonder also???

[John Holotko]

It just goes to show you what "dumbing down" the hobby has done for us.

 I just read this crazy thing.  Frankly, I think we should beat both rotten ideas to death with the Wouff Hong.

With one, we get digital crap everywhere, and once someone notices the "exception", no AM.  WIth the other we simply get crap everywhere.

This "self-regulation" thing is a farce.  We are able to do it now, somewhat, because there's an over-reaching framework.  Without the framework, we'll just have anarchy.

What the h*ll were we thinkin'  ?

I wouldn't  entirely dismiss the idea of "self regulation". Given the right motivation people can be quite capable of regulating their behavior. I have seen it happen and in some of what would seem to be the  most  unlikely places.  I cannot say for certain it would worj 100% of the time on ham radio. At the same time I would';t dismiss it entirely as a crackpot idea. Perhaps some level of compromise is needed. Maintaining a basic underlying framework (which we can do) and at the same time allow for a greater level of self regulation.

[K1MVP]

It just goes to show you what "dumbing down" the hobby has done for us.

 I just read this crazy thing.  Frankly, I think we should beat both rotten ideas to death with the Wouff Hong.

With one, we get digital crap everywhere, and once someone notices the "exception", no AM.  WIth the other we simply get crap everywhere.

This "self-regulation" thing is a farce.  We are able to do it now, somewhat, because there's an over-reaching framework.  Without the framework, we'll just have anarchy.

What the h*ll were we thinkin'  ?

I wouldn't  entirely dismiss the idea of "self regulation". Given the right motivation people can be quite capable of regulating their behavior. I have seen it happen and in some of what would seem to be the  most  unlikely places.  I cannot say for certain it would worj 100% of the time on ham radio. At the same time I would';t dismiss it entirely as a crackpot idea. Perhaps some level of compromise is needed. Maintaining a basic underlying framework (which we can do) and at the same time allow for a greater level of self regulation.

John,
You "are deamin" John,--self policing DID occur 40 years ago,--2006 IS a different
world in terms of behavior, IMO.
The "more" you give away,--the more people want, or will "grab",--it`s just human nature.
The FCC has better things to do than "chase" renegade hams,--again just my opinion.

                                               73, K1MVP

P.S,--I did file my comments at the "eleventh hour" yesterday on RM-11306