[AMRadio] ARRL bandwidth scheme not accepted


peter markavage manualman at juno.com
Fri Dec 9 21:28:51 EST 2005


Having control is good, sort of like bandwidth limitations. I only bow to
my wife and my two girls.

Pete, cwa

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 20:50:27 -0500 "Mike Sawyer" <w3slk at uplink.net>
writes:
> 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



More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 23 Oct 2017.