|[AMRadio] ARRL bandwidth scheme not accepted|
w3slk at uplink.net
Fri Dec 9 17:16:11 EST 2005
What's the problem? Is your precious (be)League(d) the only voice for
amateur radio? I'll give the CTT guys credit for placing something out there
that is fair and equitable to all modes. They placed it in all the ham radio
venues for comment. I saw both praise and criticism given to them. At least
they didn't do what the ARRgghhL did by drop-kicking it right to the FCC
with out any input from members, (or at least the members I know). The time
is coming very rapidly that hams will recognize the fact that the ARRgghhL
has outlived its usefulness and a new voice will be heard speaking for the
ham radio masses!
----- Original Message -----
From: "peter markavage" <manualman at juno.com>
To: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:23 PM
Subject: [AMRadio] ARRL bandwidth scheme not accepted
I think you're missing the point here.
VJB said: "Thanks for your thoughts. I'm totally with you on the need for
Newington to poll its constituents BEFORE acting on a major policy or
regulatory proposal like this one.
Too bad that system has been discredited by the laundry list of bad moves
that could have been avoided by the leadership in Newington, had they
only alllowed popular opinion and asked some people for guidance on what
they should do."
Seven guys (CTT group) got together for some back-room activity and
created a proposal, which was submitted to the FCC prior to the ARRL
submission, that has far greater implications on our amateur radio
service. Basically, their proposal removes any bandwidth limitations on
any transmitted mode in the HF bands. Further, it also implies, that you
can operate any mode, any bandwidth, anywhere your license allows, as
long as you perceive you are not causing interference to any other
station. Digital and analog modes are to co-exist by some undefined band
plan and gentleman's agreement. I have yet to see any recommended or
proposed band plan from this group or who would even develop this plan.
To my original point: Since VJB stated "...need for Newington to poll its
constituents BEFORE acting on a major policy or regulatory proposal like
this one"; did the CTT group, which VJB is listed as a member, poll the
amateur member users of these many digital and analog modes (some of
which are still experimental in nature) or ask for guidance from them,
prior to them submitting their proposal. Obviously, any amateur can
submit a proposal to the FCC without asking anyone for input, but with
this proposal having so many far reaching consequences for amateurs in
the future, how much data did they collect, digest, and use prior to
submitting their proposal. To their defense, they did include a survey
called "An Analysis of Band Occupancy By Mode" on a "typical" day at a
specific U. S. location in their proposal. I have not seen or heard of
any other collected data beyond this simple survey.
The ARRL solicited comments for over a year before it decided to move
forward with it's proposal.
>From those that may also want to review the CTT proposal, go here:
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:19:51 -0600 W5OMR/Geoff <w5omr at satx.rr.com>
> >How many amateurs did you solicit comments from before you
> submitted your
> >proposal? I see your proposal has a section on "views considered"
> >QRZ postings, but did you really go out and solicit comments and
> >reactions to your tentative proposal before you issued it? I see
> >record of that.
> >Let's set the record straight.
> Gentlemen, Gentleman... who cares about the record? Let's stick to
> subject at hand.
> AFTER this subject has it's final outcome, whatever that is, -THEN-
> can argue semantics.
> Let's us -at least- remember that this is OUR hobby. WE are in it,
> together. Let's US work toward that end, shall we?
> 73 = Best Regards,
AMRadio mailing list
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 17 Dec 2017.