|[AMRadio] Mission Creep - reject RM-11306|
wa3vjb at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 20 08:44:19 EST 2006
There are signs the Back Room Boys in Newington have
tried a back-door approach to open ham radio to
unrestricted email from the internet, under the guise
of being fashionably digital.
This Q & A is part of a new thread opposing the
League's Petition, showing how the concerns are not
limited to unjustified penalties against AM.
Submitted for your consideration in preparing your
official opposition Comment.
(Please file your thoughts to the FCC site or via
StopRM11306 at amfone.net)
The basis of the ARRL petition is the ARRL Ad Hoc
HFDigital committee recommendation. This committee
was composed of the two Winlink top operatives, one of
which was given the chairman job, two TAPR board
members, the inventor of PSK31, and myself, developer
of the most popular PSK31 program.
The committee was chartered, in proper fashion, ONLY
to recommend the introduction of new digital modes,
and NOT to recommend any bandplan (which was to be the
subject of another Minute).
However, on the third day of the committee meetings,
the chairman tabled a bandplan and ordered all other
members do the same (over my objection). It is obvious
from comparing Part 97.221 in the ARRL petition with
that currently in the FCC regulations that the
intention of the recommendation was to open the HF
bands for Winlink Email robots, and not primarily to
solve any major problems with the current mode-based
system, even though permanently accomodating new
digital modes is slowed down by first requiring them
to be shown not to be harmful by the FCC STA process.
The resulting committee recommendation was a bandplan
heavily favoring Winlink 2000 (which represents less
than one percent of the FCC-licensed hams and less
than one third percent of hams worldwide), and was
formulated by that special interest group without any
representation of mode users other than digital. In
exchange, the ARRL Board adopted the Winlink 2000
system as part of the ARRL traffic system.
I don't know what "other peoples' opinions" you are
looking for, but the petition itself belies the ARRL
motives behind the petition, regardless of the spin
you read from Newington.
If you have not seen it, here is one person's view of
how the petition came to pass (which ARRL conveniently
neglected to make public, even though it was legally
part and parcel of the committee output):
Dissenting Recommendation of the ARRL Ad Hoc HFDigital
Read this carefully and then look for all the subtle
elements of the ARRL petition that serve to divulge
the true agenda behind the petition, such as the
proposed rewording of 97.221 and the total absence of
restrictions that IARU Region 1 provided in their
>From this, you should be able to form your own
73, Skip KH6TY
Member of the former ARRL Ad Hoc HFDigital Committee
Thanks for the insight. The "other people's opinions"
that I seek are those like yours from the inside - and
others, like myself, whom are on the outside looking
in. From my perspective - it is a strange
coincidence, and that article does shed some light on
the origin, intent, and morphology of the petition.
Edited by ac0db on Jan. 19 2006,20:18
Matthew E. Engelbrecht
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 18 Oct 2017.