You are in the OFFICIAL RECORD

[wa2zdy]

I see my comments have finally appeared. I'm curious what you folks think of my wonderful authorship. (Ok, I'm kidding!  This is the first time I've ever filed comments with FCC, so I am genuinely curious.)
Comments of WA2ZDY


What do you folks think of CQ magazine's comments?  I think they sound pretty rational.  And they clearly urge making a permanent allowance for AM, just as I  have in my comments, unlike the "exception" ARRL proposes.
Comments of CQ Magazine

[K1MVP]

NY4NC,--Glen,
You "hit the nail on the head",--I did leave out that choice "E" -- many hams may
not feel their comments will not make any difference,--myself included.

I really DID believe that comments from the ham community might really mean
something when I filed comments on the license "restructuring" proposals,
back in April of 2004, on RM-10867, RM-10868, and RM-10870.
 I also felt that the FCC might look at the comments presented back then and "tell" the ARRL,to "get their act together in terms of presenting a "viable" exam system.

From what I "surmised,-- from the FCC, in terms of a response, was that it
was NOT their job to insure that hams are "technically competant" or "qualified".
The net result, from what I "sensed" from the FCC was that they DO NOT
want to be "bothered" with HR, especially in terms of the exam system,IMO.

The FCC also expressed to the ARRL reluctance to establishing a "new" entry
level license, such as the novice ticket we had back in the 50`s through which
many "new" hams came into ham radio.

So--my "sense" from their response, was that they want to "streamline" the
amateur service, to keep the workload down to a minimum(for obvious reasons).
This also showed me,(with their response) that the ARRL does NOT have the "clout"
or "respect" from the FCC that it once had,--again only my opinion.
 
I also filed on the proposal to do away with CW,--WT Docket# 05-235 last October
when the FCC was soliciting "comments" from the public on that issue.
I almost did not file, because of the previous response from the FCC,
on the license proposals, but I did at the "eleventh hour".

My feeling was that the FCC should  retain the 5wpm cw requirement, at the
very least for the "extra" class  as the ARRL wanted,--but here again, the FCC
indicated it wanted to delete CW for all license classes,--another "lost" for
the ARRL.--so much for "league clout" with the FCC.

So it looks like the FCC(IMO) is probably headed in the direction of "de-regulation"
for the amateur service of the future,--in the 21st century, and who knows where
this will lead.--Maybe they would like the service to "go away" or "self destruct".

The net of it is,-- I agree, that these "comments" may be just a "dog and pony"
show, and they are just going through a "formality" and the FCC may and
will do what it D--N well wants, irregardless of what the ARRL, or the "common
Joe" amateur wants.

Another problem,--as I see it is,with many of the"comments" on these proposals,
is that they are just a "yea" or "nea", or a short sentence with no real "structure"
and explanation as to WHY or WHY NOT the proposal is "good" or "bad".
I gotta believe the FCC looks at some of these comments and just "files" them
in the waste basket, and "chuckes".

I was given a piece of "advise" back about two years ago,--as I had never filed
comments on any proposals up until then,--another ham told me to present
a "good letter" to the FCC, and not a "duh, this proposal sucks just cause it does".

He mentioned that this was not like posting comments on a web forum, and
these comments DO become part of an "official record" in the FCC files.
As such, the FCC will view the "quality" of the comments and that WILL reflect
on the amateur service as a whole.
                                    
                                   73, K1MVP

P.S, my friend(a K4) also suggested doing a "real" spell check before sending out
      my letter to the FCC, along  well structured comments.

P.P.S,
       Again as far as comments "meaning" anything,--my good friend WA3VJB
       thinks they actually do,--He and I have a difference of opinion on this issue,
       as we have discussed this before, right Paul?  

  
  

 
 

[WA3VJB]

ZDY I split your post and that of Rene's into this new topic:
You are in the OFFICIAL RECORD

so that we can keep the earlier thread on track (about the fate of ham radio)

I saw CQ Magazine's comment to RM-11305, where they said they are Opposed "at this time," citing paragraph 20 in their offering that also Opposes RM-11306.

Most of the people filing against RM-11305 lack confidence that others can behave with all that space.

Sad.

Rene, I really do feel filing a Comment makes a difference. Look at the victory by those opposed to the Petition to impose the first-ever mandatory segregation of weak CW on 160 meters. They prevailed despite being outnumbered by those who filed in favor of the proposed subbands.

That's a real good example, since it is recent and has application today.

Moreover, the members of the group who unsuccessfully asked for that regulation on 160 clearly positioned themselves as a special interest, much like the digital buffs who persuaded the group in Newington to cough up this bandwidth scheme.

The answer the FCC should be the same the agency next gives the group in Newington, if we effectively point out the similarities.

Please participate if you haven't already.

Paul/VJB

[wa2zdy]

ZDY I split your post and that of Rene's into this new topic:
You are in the OFFICIAL RECORD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the people filing against RM-11305 lack confidence that others can behave with all that space.

Thank you Paul. And I am among those who don't believe folks will behave in all that "free" space.  Not that they can't but that they won't.  As I'm sure you saw in my comments, I use the abuse you AM ops take from the slopbucketeers on a nearly daily basis as a prime example.  I stated the same in my comments on 11305. 

As a CW operator the very same issue causes me concern.  If the majority think they can get away with it, they will try.  And while they are more an annoyance to the AM community than much else, why stand by and allow them to colonise the rest of the bands as soon as they can? 

CTT cites 160m and Canada as proof that segmented bands work.  Canada is a very different place than the US.  As much as we're alike, we're totally different.  The make up of Canada is much like ours but they don't have the crazy crime we have.  They aren't out killing each other in droves, and the seem for the most part to stay out of each other's hair on the HF bands.   Of course there are far fewer Canadians and Canadian hams too.

And 160 is a poor place to cite for an example of "hams."  To get on 160 with any effectiveness requires more space for antennas than many folks have.  Those who put forth the effort to get on and do well on 160 - the ones the rest of us hear on the top band - are the ones who respect what they've had to work for.   And I believe being successful on 160 shows that the ham has done his share of work.  (This brings to mind Thomas Paine's quote "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly."  I believe strongly in the rationale behind that quote.



Voluntary bandplans cannot work with the society we have today.  They require gentlemen and decency, both of which are sorely lacking.

[K1MVP]

ZDY I split your post and that of Rene's into this new topic:
You are in the OFFICIAL RECORD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the people filing against RM-11305 lack confidence that others can behave with all that space.

Thank you Paul. And I am among those who don't believe folks will behave in all that "free" space.  Not that they can't but that they won't.  As I'm sure you saw in my comments, I use the abuse you AM ops take from the slopbucketeers on a nearly daily basis as a prime example.  I stated the same in my comments on 11305. 

As a CW operator the very same issue causes me concern.  If the majority think they can get away with it, they will try.  And while they are more an annoyance to the AM community than much else, why stand by and allow them to colonise the rest of the bands as soon as they can? 

CTT cites 160m and Canada as proof that segmented bands work.  Canada is a very different place than the US.  As much as we're alike, we're totally different.  The make up of Canada is much like ours but they don't have the crazy crime we have.  They aren't out killing each other in droves, and the seem for the most part to stay out of each other's hair on the HF bands.   Of course there are far fewer Canadians and Canadian hams too.

And 160 is a poor place to cite for an example of "hams."  To get on 160 with any effectiveness requires more space for antennas than many folks have.  Those who put forth the effort to get on and do well on 160 - the ones the rest of us hear on the top band - are the ones who respect what they've had to work for.   And I believe being successful on 160 shows that the ham has done his share of work.  (This brings to mind Thomas Paine's quote "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly."  I believe strongly in the rationale behind that quote.



Voluntary bandplans cannot work with the society we have today.  They require gentlemen and decency, both of which are sorely lacking.

Chris,--WA2ZDY,
Am not sure how my posting found its way under your new topic,--as you can see
my response was in reply to Glen,--NY4NC  "will ham radio last forever" but
it found its way to your topic of "official record" for some reason.

In any case,--I would like to say that I do agree completely with your thoughts here
on this posting,--I could not have expressed it better myself.

                                           73`s Rene, K1MVP

 

[wa2zdy]

I think because it fits the 11305 petition for elimination of all subbands except operator license class.

And I actually didn't start this thread, Paul, VJB did.  Read his post here, third from the top where he explains why he moved my post to start this thread.  I think he made a wise choice.

[wa2zdy]

Phil, I respect your opinion but I don't base my feelings just on contests.  I base my opinion on US society in general.  Once upon a time "we" behaved because we were taught it was the right thing to do.  Now it seems if folks behave it's often just because they don't think they'll get caught.  As the crime rate drops, the "courtesy in society" continues to deteriorate. 

If you read again, some of my basis for my opinion is what YOU, the AM commuity (of which you must remember I am not a member) have to tolerate just to enjoy the mode of your choice.  The very lack of decency that would doom ham radio to anarchy if 11305 were to be enacted.  Those of us who are on CW are under no illusion that we'd be battling the slopbuckeeters for space just as we battled Radio Moscow on the 40m Novice band in the 1970's.  I for one had fun back then but I don't want to go through it again.

I also consider the lessons I learned about society while enforcing society's laws for 24 years. 

Based on all these lessons, I believe enough US hams would refuse to "play nice" that chaos would reign on the bands.  I don't like it but that's how it seems to me.

[w3jn]

Phil, I couldn't have said it better.  It's particularly indicative that a despicable dictatorship like Cuba gives more freedom of operation than the US  Government aloows its hams.

Nice one 

[WD8BIL]

Has it occurred to you or anyone else who opposes RM-11305 on that ground that a lot of the problem on 75 meters is due to the terrible overcrowding of the phone band?

Exactly Phil !!!

There's far more road rage on a crowded highway than on a country road !!!
 

[WB2RJR]

Chris,

You know, I agree with you. Let me tell you why.

I operate CW (mostly), AM, and then on occasion SSB, only for DX or to practice Spanish. Want to hear my AM signal? I am heard on the East coast, but usually around 4-5 AM. Not a lot of people on at that time, lots of room on 75 meters.

Will you hear me during "Prime Time", evenings on 75?  No, of course not, the band is overcrowded and I wouldn't think of transmitting a DSB AM signal at that time. I do have the right to do it, but I don't because I consider the overall band conditions and the effect of getting large numbers of people p*ssed off.

Basically 11305 would work if everyone was like me, or Phil K2PG who moves to 160 to be away from the cr*p on 75. Almost everyone against you on this thread doesn't operate AM like I do, getting on when the band has few people on, they want to be on on "Prime Time", stick it in your face and strap. I can do that too, but I don't for a reason. I don't want AM singled out and outlawed. Evidently this simple fact has gone right over the head of the CTT.

The CTT will try and tell you a rational person operates DSB AM on 75 during prime time, and fight for that. I think that's stupid. These people have done nothing but put AM right in the bullseye. If AM gets outlawed, be sure to thank the ARRL and CTT for bringing this cr*p up.

I didn't join this hobby 43 years ago to spend my time responding to inane suggestions filed to the FCC by whoever or whatever. I've about had it.

73, Marty WB2RJR

[WD8BIL]

Amazing Marty. Simply amazing !!!!
You know us so well !!

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Amazing Marty. Simply amazing !!!!
You know us so well !!

Yea, really. Best to speak for one's self and not play mind reader. Such brash generalizations fall apart with even a cursory analysis. Further, history shows otherwise. In other words, what a load of crap.

[WB2RJR]

Amazing Marty. Simply amazing !!!!
You know us so well !!

Bud,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are part of the CTT that says it will work because everyone will just do what is right. That's correct, right?

Are you also the same person who had a discussion with me lasting several days wherein you didn't see the problem with someone transmitting Christmas music for several hours on 75 meters? For most of us, except you, this was a no brainer. Transmitting music is illegal AND it makes the AM community look bad. You had a hard time getting that, didn't you?

Interesting position for someone pushing 11305. Maybe I'll point that out to the FCC. After all, if one of the authors of 11305 doesn't consider breaking the law a serious matter, how will he look at breaking a gentlemans agreement.

Steve,

See, I was able to do that without using any of my psychic abilities. I do however read this board and remember what people say. You ought to try it sometime.

Death to 11305 AND 11306

73, Marty WB2RJR

[WA3VJB]

Marty I am surprised by your attitude. You are self-conscious about using AM.

Are you as reluctant to be seen in the vast, protected space reserved for CW?  Have you proposed any regulatory changes to scale the size of those areas to match today's levels of use? I bet you haven't, and so we can say you encourage (by inaction) a lot of wasted spectrum.

Feeling embarrassed yet ?

Now trying to be serious.

Good judgment should always guide where anyone operates regardless of mode or activity. You go too far, and almost automatically apologize for those times when you get on the air on AM. What a defeatist approach, and it emboldens those who feel AM is less than legitimate on the HF bands. 

Your defensiveness about AM can do us more harm than good, and it's probably good that you do not associate yourself with those of us who enjoy one of the many specialties that are held in high regard by MOST amateurs, yourself not included.

Paul/VJB

[WD8BIL]

Are you also the same person who had a discussion with me lasting several days wherein you didn't see the problem with someone transmitting Christmas music for several hours on 75 meters?

No !

Interesting position for someone pushing 11305. Maybe I'll point that out to the FCC. After all, if one of the authors of 11305 doesn't consider breaking the law a serious matter, how will he look at breaking a gentlemans agreement.

You do that !  If one really does hold that view then its your duty to point it out.

See, I was able to do that without using any of my psychic abilities. I do however read this board and remember what people say. You ought to try it sometime.

Nothing psychic about remembering something that never happened.

Do a search on all my post. You won't find anywhere such a position was taken Marty.

Bud,

Correct me if I'm wrong, ...

You stand corrected.