Hi Gary and all,
In search of facts, I went through my copies of QST from December 2004 through January 2006 for mentioning the bandwidth/digital petition.
I came up with these QST entries:
December 2004 – page 71, In Brief – “ARRL digital communications study deadline looms:” … (20 lines in one column)… starts out about the ad hoc committee on ARES communications and digital comm….A little over half way down the article “The ARRL Board of Directors resolved at its July 2004 meeting to encourage the deployment of e-mail via Amateur radio “as exemplified by Winlink 2000” to meet the needs of served agencies and others involved in providing disaster communications. To participate, visit the ARRL Digital Communications Study Web page,
www.arrl.org/digtest.
February 2005 – I spotted this 4 paragraph article, not on RM-11306, but directly relates. Eludes to behavior the FCC will have in judging RM-11305 and RM-11306. “Happenings” section page 83, FCC News – FCC Denies AM, SSB Bandwidth Petition: …RM-11740…filed May 27, 2003…FCC said a majority of the 160 members of the amateur community who commented on the petition opposed the concept. …Below 28.8 MHz. the petition recommended a max. 5.6 kHz. bw for AM (A3E)…The FCC said its existing rules were adequate to address any noncompliance. It also said the petitioners failed to show that there is “a particular problem” with stations using AM.
April 2005 – page 9 “It Seems To Us…” (2 full columns) “Narrowing the Bandwidth Issues”…At the January meeting the ARRL Board of Directors resolved several of the outstanding issues concerning our planned petition to the FCC to regulate Amateur Radio subbands principally by signal bandwidth rather than by mode of emission. The petition will not be filed until they are also resolved – probably in the later half of the year, and certainly not before then. To recap briefly, in July 2002 the Board decided that the ARRL would petition the FCC to regulate subbands by bandwidth instead of by mode “at the earliest practical opportunity”….What led to the decision was set out on this page in the September 2004 issue….Detailed information on the draft is available at
www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html. ...The purpose of the September 2004 editorial was to invite members to review and comment on the work that had been done to that point. Hundreds of you took us up on the offer and provided reams of very useful input. When the ARRL Executive Committee met last October 16 (2004) to review your input, the committee found considerable support for the concept of the petition……If you have any thoughts you would like to share, please send them to
bandwidth@arrl.org. Your comments will be shared with your own Director and will be reported to the Executive Committee. To repeat: the petition has not been finalized and definitely will not be filed prior to the July meeting of the Board. Once adopted, FCC rules tend to remain in place for many years. It’s worth all the time it takes to get it right. – David Sumner, K1ZZ
June 2005 – page 72 “HAPPENINGS” ( one and ½ pages article) “ARRL Executive Committee Readies Bandwidth Recommendations” …there is a chart - their new version of the classic multi-color allocations for the 9 HF bands, by bandwidth.
September 2005 – page 24 “CORRESPONDENCE” - “REGULATION BY BANDWIDTH” – I think that you have done a wonderfully thoughtful job and that, if implemented, the ARRL proposed changes will serve Amateur Radio for many decades to come. Thank you for your hard work on behalf of the Amateur Radio community. TOM MCGUIRE, NO9S Davenport, Iowa
- Page 55 – major article, 3 pages “ARRL Board Adopts Modified Regulation by
Bandwidth Proposal, by Rick Lindquist N1RL and Dave Patton NN1N.
October 2005 – page 9 “It Seems To Us…” (2 full columns) “Self-Regulation”…Many of the concerns expressed about the Board’s action since July have reflected the view that we need the FCC to adopt and enforce rules to protect us from one another. There is another way to address these concerns: through effective band planning processes within the amateur community. One problem with relying on the FCC Rules to define subbands is that it is very difficult and time-consuming to change them….. 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.…It is a formidable challenge to put together band planning processes that will earn the broad support of the Amateur Radio community, but it is important that we do so. The need exists now, and will exist irrespective of what ultimately happens to the concept of regulation by bandwidth. – David Sumner, K1ZZ
(I’m just the messenger here and I’m not pro-ARRL; reporting some of what was printed in QST.; de KLR.)
Over the magazine period I mentioned, they certainly didn’t run this up the flagpole from a casual reader’s point of view until the major article in the September 2005 issue. But it wasn’t a secret either, or just a very recent development. It’s been on-going for many years. 99.99 % of us don’t bother to read “It Seems To Us…” in the front of QST or the board minutes published monthly on their website, apparently.
Years ago, as I recall, QST used to publish the minutes of the monthly board meetings. Not now that I see. Perhaps the minutes are on their website? Yes.
ARRL website – the horizontal row of yellow boxes in the upper left corner of their home page – click News/Bulletins box, then click Announcements box selection.
I wonder if our resident ARRL watchdog Pete WA2CWA is reading the monthly minutes?
David Sumner is the secretary for the minutes.
For example, an excerpt from minutes of the ARRL executive committee, number 478, Fort Worth, Texas, October 22, 2005 :
2. At Minute 36, July 2005 Meeting of the Board, the Executive Committee was instructed to give final review to a draft petition for FCC rule making to regulate amateur subbands by maximum bandwidth rather than by emission mode, with the petition to be filed at the committee's discretion. The Executive Committee had received a request from two Directors and two Vice Directors requesting postponement of the filing of the petition to permit the Board to revisit the possible provision of subbands below 29 MHz in which digital emission bandwidths greater than 3.5 kHz would be permitted. The Committee discussed both the procedural and the substantive aspects of the request, as well as other considerations with regard to the timing of the filing. After discussion, on motion of Mr. Roderick, it was unanimously voted that the General Counsel is directed to file the petition as drafted in accordance with the Board's instructions, once final review has been completed.
- - - - -
It’s been a team effort here on the AM Forum sharing information and developing our opinions because the 2 petitions encompass a lot of details. The digital robot ramifications of RM-11306 would have escaped me if not for the writings of Howard Teller which I spotted on QRZ.com and posted on the AM Forum under the QSO topic of “Some RM-11306 Information”.
Gary, I’m not trying to knock you at all here. I think that most of us are guilty of some level of apathy. This may be due to job and/or family duties, one’s desired focus within the broad field of ham radio, whatever. The ARRL is a commercial entity and has it’s own agenda that it follows steadfastly. But it appears to me that it is open with its path, even if somewhat slippery.
In the future, it is our duty to keep an eye on what is going on in the ARRL via reading QST “It Seems To Us…”, “CORRESPONDENCE”, “HAPPENINGS” (which includes FCC News), besides the specific articles that grab our attention, and reading the board minutes posted on the ARRL website.
We need to provide feedback to the appropriate league people in a timely manner when deemed. Others need to appreciate Pete when he posts ARRL news, instead of slamming him. I don’t think we want to drive him away like Ed Hare, Lab Manager and RFI investigator for the ARRL was.
Only 3 days left gentlemen to file your comment on RM-11305 and RM-11306 with the FCC.
