Bandwidth Petition "a Reasonable Middle Ground," League Says

[Pete, WA2CWA]

From the ARRL web site, 2/22/06:

NEWINGTON, CT, Feb 22, 2006--The ARRL says its Petition for Rule Making (RM-11306) to regulate the amateur bands by necessary bandwidth rather than by mode represents "a reasonable middle ground in a difficult regulatory area." In reply comments filed with the FCC February 21, the League said it was gratified to see more than 900 commenters responded to the admittedly "controversial" petition and noted that many "show the investment of a good deal of thought about the proposal." ARRL said it would have been concerned if the amateur community had not responded with a loud voice on all facets of the League's regulation-by-bandwidth proposal.....

To read the rest of the story, see the charts, read the FAQ's, buy a book, etc.; go here:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/02/22/1/?nc=1#note

[Tom WA3KLR]

“ARRL said it would have been concerned if the amateur community had not responded with a loud voice on all facets of the League's regulation-by-bandwidth proposal.”

Yeah, I would have been concerned too.  If the amateur community had not responded, this would mean we are idiots.

“....the League called the petition "the most thoroughly vetted regulatory proposal" it's ever developed. “

This may be true, but the comment response was 83 % opposed to their petition!

What totally disgusting, smug, arrogant spin-doctoring B***S***  is their press releases and their Reply Comment!

[K1MVP]

I agree,--what a bunch of BS,
Like they(the ARRL really wanted input on these issues) and that`s why they
met "behind closed doors" with the digital elite ad hoc committee.

ZZ has discussed these issues,--oh really?--on a "oneway soapbox" in QST.
"Man the lifeboats boys",--it`s "every man or woman for themselves.
 
                                       73, MVP

[WA3VJB]

Had the group in Newington done more than parrot the Reply Comment their attorney filed to spin an ARRL analysis, they may have written something like this:

League Leaders Beat Retreat as Angry Members shout NO !
'
NEWINGTON (ARRL) -- There was a wholesale resignation Feb. 22 of League management after a stinging rebuke handed down by the greater Amateur community against a proposal the ARRL spent more than two years developing.

The situation was compared to the downfall of a third world government whose self-appointed leaders were routed by peaceful but determined citizens with good-hearted intentions to provide real representation for the common good.

Provoking the masses was a proposal to throw out the hobby's longstanding system of regulatory coodination, and substitute a scheme that would benefit a few people hoping to cash in on a proprietary digital system. The League had recently accepted a $100,000 federal grant that reportedly was earmarked to be shared with these digital developers in a fresh marketing campaign to use ham radio to convey email from the internet.

"We thought we could sneak this through," said one highly-paid ARRL staffer, interviewed while cleaning out his desk of trinkets he had collected over many years attending junkets to the International Amateur Radio Union and other ham radio conventions. Guards flanked the onetime administrator, making sure the more expensive property he had accumulated did not accompany him out the door.

(more to follow)

[Pete, WA2CWA]

“ARRL said it would have been concerned if the amateur community had not responded with a loud voice on all facets of the League's regulation-by-bandwidth proposal.”

Yeah, I would have been concerned too.  If the amateur community had not responded, this would mean we are idiots.

A very small part of the amateur community, and one might question the sanity of some of the respondents.

“....the League called the petition "the most thoroughly vetted regulatory proposal" it's ever developed. “

This may be true, but the comment response was 83 % opposed to their petition!

Maybe the remaining 549,000 plus U. S. amateurs don't care if a bandwidth regulation proposal was put in place.

What totally disgusting, smug, arrogant spin-doctoring B***S***  is their press releases and their Reply Comment!

Politics can be a bitch at times. I give the ARRL credit for standing by for what they believe is the right direction for the future of the Amateur Radio Service and not be swayed by the poetic rhetoric in some of the comment responses.

[K1MVP]

Pete,
I cannot believe this latest response(from you) to Tom`s comments on the
ARRL`s "excuses".
I will leave the "final response",--to "bigger guns" tham myself.--and many
hams wonder why ham radio is in the "mess" its in.

                                            73, Rene, K1MVP

    Boy,--am I "confused" in this mess, as I suspect the ARRL is also.

P.P.S.,--the ARRL "standing firm' for what is "right"?--like following the
           "yellow brick road" to the "almighty buck"?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I agree,--what a bunch of BS,
Like they(the ARRL really wanted input on these issues) and that`s why they
met "behind closed doors" with the digital elite ad hoc committee.

BoD always meets "behind closed doors". I believe the issue, regulation by bandwidth, came up before the digital ad hoc committee was formed. One of the concerns brought forth at a Director's meeting was "how and where do digital modes fit into the mainstream amateur bands over the next 5, 10, 20 years. The digital ad hoc committee was formed; they prepared a proposal, based on their issues and concerns, which was then presented to the Board. The Board then massaged that into the over all "regulation by bandwidth" which was aready a tabled item. After several iterations of draft proposals, a final proposal was generated, and after Bod voting, was made ready to send to the FCC. Throughout this time period of approximately 15 months, members and non-members had the opportunity to voice their opinions directly to an ARRL e-mail address or directly to their Director. ARRL doesn’t make house calls, or go door-to-door, to get opinions on their tentative proposals.

ZZ has discussed these issues,--oh really?--on a "oneway soapbox" in QST.
"Man the lifeboats boys",--it`s "every man or woman for themselves.
 
                                       73, MVP

He presented the issues, concerns, and a plan on several occasions  in QST, ARRL Letter, and on their web site.

As a side note to one of my previous comments, "one might question the sanity of some of the respondents", I was not singling out any specific comment or person, although there were some comments that made one "scratch their head" trying to understand where the writer was coming from.

[WA3VJB]

No wonder it took more than two years for the back-room boys in Newington to try to "fix" this thing -- they were working around the edges when it was the core that was rotten.

[Art]

"As a side note to one of my previous comments, "one might question the sanity of some of the respondents", I was not singling out any specific comment or person, although there were some comments that made one "scratch their head" trying to understand where the writer was coming from."

Pete, It's clear the ARRL has no understanding of, and/or concern for, the majority of amateur radio operators. I  say this as an observer and member of the >80% who disagree with the ARRL proposal.

The CTT has significantly modified its position to accommodate the comments and input during the information input phase of the rule making process.

The ARRL spews the same diatribe in a more arrogant, form. They have a different agenda than the betterment of amateur radio. That much is clear.

[W1DAN]

Hi All:

to reply to one note above (" give the ARRL credit for standing by for what they believe is the right direction for the future of the Amateur Radio Service and not be swayed by the poetic rhetoric in some of the comment responses.") :

Why not have the League actually poll all US hams, then create a proposal based on the results instead of trying to "sell" us their opinion as being the only correct one!!!!!!

73,
dan
W1DAN

[Tom WA3KLR]

Pete has said and others will say that to do that mailing will cost too much money.  But in the last year I have received at 2 mailings from the ARRL - join the Diamond Club letter and the Donate to the W1AW Endowment Fund letter.  The Endowment Fund letter came in an envelope with glassene window, (2) 8 1/2 x 11 sheets (4 pages) and a return envelope which you put the stamp on (if you choose to send donation).

I think the acid test over the next year is for us to determine if the ARRL's "lobby" portion of operations is truely democratic or not.

Is the ARRL a National Association for Amateur Radio (an un-official name!), or is it truely THE national association OF radio amateurs?

[WA3VJB]

Thanks to Pete's having taken the time to suggest edits to Dan's response, I was prompted to file a Motion to Extend the Reply Comment period another 15 days. We shall see if the FCC acts favorably on the request so that Dan and others can weigh in with fully vetted Reply Comments.