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

peter markavage manualman at juno.com
Tue Jan 18 19:45:01 EST 2005

You're mixing apples and oranges here. These are two different
activities. It's also not clear to me, your statement "Putting these two
actions together is interesting". That hasn't been done, nor, to my
knowledge, was the intent of the ARRL "proposal for review" to the
general amateur population. ARRL's proposal is a much broader scope of
subbands by bandwidth "realignment". Actually, under the original ARRL
proposal, dated August 24, 2004, the AM community was targeted with a
max. of 9KHz bandwidth. However, other things within the proposal, were
met with dismay and concern within the amateur service. I don't believe
there has been any statement yet from the ARRL on the future of this
proposed proposal. Since the ARRL Board of Directors is meeting this
coming weekend, Jan. 21-22, this proposed proposal and comments received,
are expected to be discussed and its future decided.
Quote from the Board of Directors Meeting Notice:
"In addition to considering and approving a budget for the new fiscal
year, the directors are expected to talk about the status of the League's
grassroots lobbying initiative, modifications to the ARRL's pending
proposal to regulate Amateur Radio subbands by bandwidth rather than by
emission mode, and the anticipated Petition for Reconsideration to the
Broadband over Power Line (BPL) Report and Order the FCC adopted October

To read the full Board Notice on the Meeting, go here:

I wouldn't close the door on the proposal for subbands by bandwidth
rather than by emission mode yet. The ARRL has made no formal statement
that it's backing away from taking this to the next level.

Pete, wa2cwa

On Tue, 18 Jan. 2005 16:57:15 -0500 "Merz Donald S" <merz.ds at mellon.com>
> 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
> The ARRL wants members' comments on a planned petition to the FCC 
> seeking
> to regulate amateur subbands by bandwidth rather than by mode. The 
> 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?

More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 18 Dec 2017.