|[AMRadio] ARRL band width plan not accepted|
w9gt at comcast.net
w9gt at comcast.net
Fri Dec 9 13:35:40 EST 2005
You are a remarkably eloqent and articulate individual and I support much of what you champion with regard to the ARRL and their sometimes misguided actions. I guess what bothers me, and apparently some others who have commented on the discussion, is the bickering that goes on between those who should be on the same side of the issue. I think the bandwidth proposal might have had some merit if it equally represented the various interest groups within the hobby. Unfortunately, like with any group, it is very difficult to arrive at any concensus when there are so many different niches represented under the banner of amateur radio. I hope that we can come up with enough agreement and interest in the common good to overcome some of the conflict. Such issues as BPL and the constant attack on our precious frequencies may be even more of a threat than our internal fights over how best to allocate our assigned spectrum.
I have wondered for a long time if it might be wise to ask for specific allocations in the bands for AM operation. Probably, however, even if the so-called windows were officially recognized, we would still be faced with the QRMers and the hecklers. I guess it just goes with the territory.
73, Jack, W9GT
-------------- Original message --------------
From: VJB <wa3vjb at yahoo.com>
> Pete, WA2CWA is using a tactic often seen when
> criticism backs someone against the wall -- he uses a
> distracting topic to try to steer the conversation
> away from the subject at hand.
> The proposal I helped write (to which he has referred)
> has been comprehensively vetted after the group I was
> involved with this past summer filed it as a Petition
> with the FCC and published it in the same venues where
> Pete participates.
> We have been receptive to support and criticism, and
> both are appreciated, have been responded to, and
> remain registered in how we will move forward should
> the FCC accept the proposal for formal Comment.
> None of that has to do with our collective review here
> and elsewhere of the bandwidth scheme that more
> recently came from the group in Newington, unless of
> course Pete, in his mind, has elevated the stature of
> the seven-member Communications Think Tank to the same
> level as the publishing, membership and subscription
> group known as the ARRL.
> In that case, thanks for the compliment.
> To bring us back to the subject matter we are
> discussing today, I again submit this nugget I found
> penned by Mike, W8MW and posted to one of the threads
> on QRZ.com He has summed up very well the sentiment
> against the League's proposal that Pete, and a few
> others, are failing to defend on its own merits.
> Mike W8MW said --
> IMHO, attempts to tweak the league's petition cannot
> mitigate the flawed process that produced a biased
> plan. Among the many mis-steps of the digital
> committee, they took it upon themselves to mingle in
> the operating interests of legacy mode operators. A
> handful of individuals not sharing these interests is
> intent on placing new restrictions on them. I see
> this as arrogance to the extreme from those
> individuals and a serious lapse in stewardship by the
> league. So now there's a petition seeking to regulate
> us all, based on the views of a few and lacking
> benefit of a fair and reasonable process involving all
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> AMRadio mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 18 Oct 2017.