[AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally


Todd, KA1KAQ ka1kaq at gmail.com
Thu Feb 23 11:06:25 EST 2006


I especially like the part that says:

"The response illustrates that ARRL's extensive publicity surrounding
its proposal since the concept was first developed in 2002 was
successful. ARRL has repeatedly both ARRL members and non-members of
the concept <........> emission mode. It has repeatedly asked members
*and non-members* (italics in their document) for input about it, and
has received extensive feedback, which was utilized in development of
the final plan."

Hmmm.....really? I don't personally know of anyone, member or not, who
received or was asked anything about this. Furthermore, if one follows
the comments on their 'concept', it's pretty clear that the vast
majority of those responding did not agree, including members. Where,
exactly, is this "utilized in development of the final plan"?

And that's in just the first paragraph of their reply. They waste no
time in getting back to piling it deep, all the while ignoring
reality, at the very least.

Unfortunately, they do make good use of those who seemingly support
"the status quo". This plays right into their hands by making their
case for progress and advancement, instead of remaining stagnant. I'm
not saying ham radio is stagnant, just that I can see them lining up
their little League ducks in a row.

Paul, will the group involved with RM-11305 be filing a reply as well?
It would be nice if some of the issues raised by those who objected
could be addressed, bringing the proposal in line with any appropriate
treaties, laws, promises, or whatever else. To be honest, I was more
surprised at those against this concept than the opposition to the
League's idea. It's amazing how many people seem to want the false
security of having their special niche protected at the expense of
all. Besides, if the ARRL really believes what it says at the end of
paragraph 6 about voluntary cooperation, there should be no problem.
(o:

In a time when so many claim to object to special treatment of the
minorities over the majority, you'd think it would be different. As
Phil clearly pointed out, many still seem to prefer a back-of-the-bus
mentality for American hams while the vast majority of the world
enjoys true freedom and liberty in their spectrum usage (IARU and
applicable rulings excepted).

BTW, I think it's time to stop referring to AM or any mode we hope to
keep as a 'legacy' mode. It sounds too much like 'special exception',
like the 9 khz deal. AM is a standard voice mode and shouldn't be made
into something that can be represented being a special interest mode
only.  By their own remarks, the ARRL is only too accepting of this
idea. Wonder why?

de Todd/'Boomer'  KA1KAQ



More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 14 Dec 2017.