[AMRadio] ARRL bandwidth scheme not accepted


Mike Sawyer w3slk at uplink.net
Fri Dec 9 20:50:27 EST 2005


For fear of starting a 'flaming war', I'm going to reserve further comments 
with the exception that I stopped bowing in the direction of Newington a 
long time ago.
Mike(y)
W3SLK
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "peter markavage" <manualman at juno.com>
To: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] ARRL bandwidth scheme not accepted


SLK said - They placed it in all the ham radio venues for comment.

After they submitted it to the FCC. As far as I can tell, we(amateurs)
had no input to their proposal prior to submission. Point us to some
discussion topic prior to submission.

SLK said - I'll give the CTT guys credit for placing something out there
that is fair and equitable to all modes

Extras lose exclusive CW segment; voice, data, and cw signals of any
bandwidth free to settle anywhere "they" perceive no interference issues;
no procedure to gather the necessary expertise to define a band plan and
unfortunately a band plan with no legal teeth; mixing of analog and data
signals lack any way to identify to each other to prevent interference;
semi and auto robots can float around the entire band.
Can you picture, say here in the Northeast, several 20KHz data stations
firing up on 3840, 3860, 3880 on a typical quiet mid-afternoon and then
decide to hang in there for several hours. I'll assume here a zero guard
band between each transmitting group. If this scenario was to happen,
remember no bandwidth limitations, no one in our area could legality
transmit anywhere 3830 and 3890, again assuming a zero guard band. With
no legal binding regulatory bandwidth controls, this proposal is doomed
to disaster. Also, unless they amend their proposal in Section 97-301 to
correct the errors, General and, I believe, Advance Class lose frequency
privileges.

SLK said - 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).

Well, I'm not sure where you've been, but the initial ARRL draft proposal
came out in August 2004. An e-mail address was set up almost immediately
to funnel all your pro and con comments to them. The draft proposal was
publicized on QRZ, eHam, AMfone, QST, CQ, WorldRadio, Newsline, ARRL
Letter, and probably a number of others. Discussions on a number of
forums commenced immediately with tons of information being passed back
and forth. The draft proposal went through several iterations, before
being submitted to the FCC. By the way, it was 15 months after the draft
proposal was made public, that it was submitted to the FCC. If you didn't
submit comments to them during that 15 month period, what can I say.

SLK said - and a new voice will be heard speaking for the ham radio
masses!

K1MAN already tried that and you know where that went; you need something
new, fresh, and financial backing to get off the ground

Pete, cwa



On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:16:11 -0500 "Mike Sawyer" <w3slk at uplink.net>
writes:
> Pete,
>     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!
> Mike(y)
> W3SLK
>
> ----- 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
>
>
> Geoff:
> 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.
> <cut>
> 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:
> http://amfone.com/proposal1.htm
>
> Pete, wa2cwa
>
>
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:19:51 -0600 W5OMR/Geoff <w5omr at satx.rr.com>
> writes:
> >
> > >How many amateurs did you solicit comments from before you
> > submitted your
> > >proposal? I see your proposal has a section on "views
> considered"
> > from
> > >QRZ postings, but did you really go out and solicit comments and
> > >reactions to your tentative proposal before you issued it? I see
> > no
> > >record of that.
> > >
> > >Let's set the record straight.
> > >
> >
> > Gentlemen, Gentleman... who cares about the record?  Let's stick
> to
> > the
> > subject at hand.
> >
> > AFTER this subject has it's final outcome, whatever that is,
> -THEN-
> > you
> > 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,
> > -Geoff/W5OMR
______________________________________________________________
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 20 Oct 2017.