Why do we have to change now?

[Art]

"I believe the Amateur Radio Service has a tradition for rules and regulations within the Service just like most of the other Services under the wing of the Federal Government. I care less about what privileges other amateurs have in other countries.
Try to compare or equate the actions of foreign governments on how they do their “business”, to how we do our government “business”, is not a rational approach."

Pete,
My position is US amateurs can and do behave as well as amateurs from other countries. This has everything to do with the US. We are not second class world citizens and do not need our hand held to prevent us from doing damage to each other.
Further, referring to people who provide a position with which you, even obtusely, disagree, does not merit a personal label of irrationality. This is a classic example of attacking the person instead of the issue. Let's focus on the issue rather than the person and you will find your arguments significantly more compelling.
As for WinLink, I agree, there are hobbyist applications. However, to assume a rather complex infrastructure was built/is being built to support the hobbyist angle is confusing to me. I think it is simply a mechanism to benefit a few amateurs at the expense of the rest, providing a service available and more effective in the commercial realm. OTOH, I can correlate email over ham radio to phone patches and make a good argument for the service. However, a viable replacement for email over ham radio exists now rather than cellular phones wide acceptance and cost effectiveness obsoleting phone patches.
Further, the actual operation of WinLink is dependent on significantly more bandwidth to achieve any real throuput. I think this is the camels nose under the tent. I also think the ARRL proposal is seriously flawed in that it promotes the use of WinLink. 11305 also allows the use of winlink by default. This is a fundamental problem that I have struggled with.
. . . and you bet we will be talking on the radio . . . those who love the law and sausage should never watch while either is being made.
73,
Art

[John Holotko]

I believe the Amateur Radio Service has a tradition for rules and regulations within the Service just like most of the other Services under the wing of the Federal Government. I care less about what privileges other amateurs have in other countries. 
Try to compare or equate the actions of foreign governments on how they do their “business”, to how we do our government “business”, is not a rational approach.

Sure it is because we are talking about how people do things and people by their very nature look at what other people  do, what works for different groups of people, and what works and doesn;t work and ideas are shared. Many ideas, rules,laws, etc.  that we have adopted here in the United States come from other countries. Likewise many countries look what we do and copy our ideas. It's human nature for one group of  people in one place to look at  other groups of people in other places and "borrow"ideas from each other. That is largely how societies progress and move forward and how we progreess as  a  human race.

So my answer is YES, we should look at the rules for ham radio in other countries, we should examine what works and what does not and if need be we should adopt good ideas if they work to our benefit. I think Art's question is an excelent one. Do we as US ham deserve less priviledges that hams in other countries ?  Is there a good reasoon why hams in America deserve less privileges than hams in other countries ? If the answer is yes then so be it. If not then perhaps we should take a close look a thow/why it can work for them and not for us

[Art]

This is me, not me representing the CTT . . . .  IARU Region 2 has published a band plan that is followed by many countries in Region 2. Would you be in favor of it as a compromise position to both the ARRL and CTT proposals? Such a move would bring the US into precise alignment with other amateurs in region 2.

-ap

[Pete, WA2CWA]

"I believe the Amateur Radio Service has a tradition for rules and regulations within the Service just like most of the other Services under the wing of the Federal Government. I care less about what privileges other amateurs have in other countries.
Try to compare or equate the actions of foreign governments on how they do their “business”, to how we do our government “business”, is not a rational approach."

Pete,
My position is US amateurs can and do behave as well as amateurs from other countries. This has everything to do with the US. We are not second class world citizens and do not need our hand held to prevent us from doing damage to each other.
Further, referring to people who provide a position with which you, even obtusely, disagree, does not merit a personal label of irrationality. This is a classic example of attacking the person instead of the issue. Let's focus on the issue rather than the person and you will find your arguments significantly more compelling.

73,
Art

Of course, we've been around this same tree a number of times and you're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you in this issue.

If we were back in the 1700's, I wonder if you would be one of those people demanding from our Forefathers not to include any rules and regulations within the framework of any governing documents.

In my opinion, band edge limit regulations are not sufficient to regulate the activities on any amateur band. Having localized regulations, i.e. CW, phone, digital, mode sections or small, medium, wide bandwidth sections, and strong band plans, with input from amateurs who use these segments, is the only way to prevent chaos on the amateur bands. Having only band edge limit regulations, and no internal framework, will quickly degenerate the Service, not because “we’re bad people” but because there will be no legal bind to shape all the activities.

[Art]

"with input from amateurs who use these segments"

. . .and this applies to the ARRL proposal, how?

[WA3VJB]

Art,
Let me defend the League.
When Pete said:
with input from amateurs who use these segments,
He and the ARRL said nothing about actually doing anything with this input.

THAT's why they had a blilnd email box, why they avoided a public discussion about the merits of their threatened bandwidth scheme, why they had a closed door draft, why the Directors asked only Pete, their man, for his "input" on what they were supposed to do about AM.

Doncha see? 

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Art,
Let me defend the League.
When Pete said:
with input from amateurs who use these segments,
He and the ARRL said nothing about actually doing anything with this input.

THAT's why they had a blilnd email box, why they avoided a public discussion about the merits of their threatened bandwidth scheme, why they had a closed door draft, why the Directors asked only Pete, their man, for his "input" on what they were supposed to do about AM.

Doncha see? 

There ya go; I is "the man".

If you read that portion of my comments for RM-11306, I commented on the band plan. Your quote above "What Pete says" has to do with a strong band plan not comments on the initial draft proposal.