[AMRadio] ARRL's Threatened Bandwidth Petition - action taken?


Merz Donald S merz.ds at mellon.com
Tue Jan 18 16:57:15 EST 2005


Sounds like a trial balloon. No ARRL petition was ever filed though. And based on these results, 
none ever will be. Case closed.

Putting these two actions together is interesting. It seems like the ARRL was expecting digital-mode users to respond with positive comments to the FCC. But the FCC said that the comments it received were overwhelmingly negative. So it sounds like the digital mode types didn't see the value to them in the bandwidth idea. Or maybe they are just not a very vocal group. 

Unlike the AM group <grin>, whose membership seems to have the disposition of your average confined Pit Bull.

73, Don Merz, N3RHT


-----Original Message-----
From: amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of peter markavage
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 5:45 PM
To: amradio at mailman.qth.net
Cc: WA3VJB at arrl.net
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] ARRL's Threatened Bandwidth Petition - action
taken?


He might be referring to this Don:
from "THE ARRL LETTER" dated August 24, 2004

ARRL SEEKS COMMENT ON DRAFT "BANDWIDTH" PETITION

The ARRL wants members' comments on a planned petition to the FCC seeking
to regulate amateur subbands by bandwidth rather than by mode. The ARRL
Board of Directors adopted the petition's guiding principle--to create a
regulatory environment more accommodating to newer technologies--two
years
ago, and it wrapped up its review of a draft petition in late July.

"The main objective is to make appropriate provision for digital modes in
the HF amateur bands, while preserving amateurs' prerogatives to use the
traditional modes," said ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ. "Regulation by
Bandwidth" is the title of Sumner's "It Seems to Us . . ." editorial in
September QST.

The full text is here http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/04/0827/

Pete, wa2cwa


On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:33:40 -0500 "Merz Donald S" <merz.ds at mellon.com>
writes:
> Whoa...much confusion here. Yes, see QST Feb 2005 p. 83. 
> 
> 1. It was not an ARRL initiative. It was a petition filed with the 
> FCC by 3 hams who are not ARRL officers and who have no ARRL 
> affiliation that I know of. 
> 
> 2. The FCC denied the petition saying that its current rules were 
> adequate.
> 
> 3. The FCC's response specifically stated that "the petitioners 
> failed to show that there is 'a particular problem' with stations 
> using AM."
> 
> This was an FCC action on a petition not initiated by the ARRL, but 
> simply reported in the pages of QST. 
> 
> As far as I can tell, the ARRL supports the use of AM to the extent 
> that you would expect for that tiny niche of their members who care 
> about AM. Correctly, the ARRL recognizes that AM is not the issue. 
> The issue is whether Powell's FCC will sell the bands out from 
> underneath us to the highest bidder. For some hams, this sellout has 
> already happened in the form of BPL. For the rest of us, AM or 
> other, the wolf is at the door. And the ARRL is the only voice we 
> have.
> 
> 73, Don Merz, N3RHT
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of P Cour
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 4:11 PM
> To: amradio at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [AMRadio] ARRL's Threatened Bandwidth Petition - action 
> taken?
> 
> 
> I understand the February issue of QST briefly
> mentions that the League has scuttled the idea of
> petitioning the FCC to segregate our modes and
> activities by bandwidth.
> 
> If this group has indeed abandoned the idea, it will
> have been the result of public protest against such a
> scheme, which the League had aired as a draft proposal
> to elicit comment.
> 
> As far as I know, the group in Newington has never
> revealed the specific comments submitted to its
> volunteeer administrators and/or paid staff. Nor has
> the group even offered a tally of pro and con
> sentiment.
> 
> Anyone on here already have the issue to
> affirm/dispute word the ARRL may have seen the light?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>         
>                 
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>  
> The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and is 
> intended solely for the use of the named addressee.
> Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any information contained 
> therein by any other person is not authorized.
> If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately 
> by returning the e-mail to the originator.(A)
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 


ManualMan, now has available laminated credit card style "Quick Reference
Guides" and laminated "Mini-Manuals" for many of the current Icom,
Kenwood, and Yaesu HT's,mobiles, and HF rigs. Newly introduced heavy
steel HT stands are now available.
______________________________________________________________
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
 
The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee.
Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any information contained therein by any other person is not authorized.
If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately by returning the e-mail to the originator.(A)



More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 19 Oct 2017.