April 2005 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:12145] Re: June QST Editorial
by dick＠pobox.com 22 Apr '05

22 Apr '05

22 APR, 2005 - 1400 CDT Dave, you have written another fine editorial about a subject that is misunderstood (one way or the other - depending on viewpoints) by many of those who follow ARRL advocacy activities. Hopefully, we can create a consensus of educated licensee support for regulation by bandwidth. At the present time, it appears we are a long way from doing this. As you know, I still have a problem with an un-intended? potential side- effect of our proposal. I plan to address this issue after I have seen more comments from my fellow directors. I hope the dialog on our BW petition continues right up to our July board meeting. - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[arrl-odv:12144] June QST editorial
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 22 Apr '05

22 Apr '05

Here is a preview of the June QST editorial, in case it will help you field comments on the bandwidth issue. Feel free to borrow from it, but please don't distribute it in advance of the appearance of the issue in mid-May. 73, Dave K1ZZ <<qs0506.pdf>>

1 0

[arrl-odv:12143] Change in remailer headers
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 22 Apr '05

22 Apr '05

We have received complaints from quite a few Board members about the change in the remailer settings that caused the "FROM" line to change from the name of the individual sending the message to the name of the group. The change was made because the other way of doing it was causing problems for a few people using a particular email program. However, it is pretty clear that far more people are negatively affected by the change. So we're changing it back. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:12142] EC Minutes, April 9, 2005
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 22 Apr '05

22 Apr '05

For those of you who saw the draft minutes last week, the only change is in item 3. I have removed some of the detail from the description of Strategy B1 so as not to telegraph our business plans. Dave K1ZZ <<ecmin476.doc>>

1 0

[arrl-odv:12141] FW: New Ham Radio Videos
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 22 Apr '05

22 Apr '05

FYI, Harold --------------------------------------- From: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:42 AM To: HQ Staff Subject: New Ham Radio Videos Hi all, Please check out these new Icom videos that were mostly shot here at HQ in Newington. http://www.icomamerica.com/amateur/video/default.asp#RN1 We will be adding some of these videos to our web site in the future and using them in other areas. Harold Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The National Association for Amateur Radio 225 Main Street Newington, CT 06111 860 594 0220 www.arrl.org/

1 0

[arrl-odv:12140] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 22 Apr '05

22 Apr '05

At this point I'm tempted to holler "uncle!" I didn't intend to create a Red Scare by suggesting that if we use our bands inefficiently, we will eventually lose some of them. But let me offer a concrete example. The maritime service has HF channels set aside for Morse telegraphy, narrow band direct printing (SITOR, which is essentially the same as AMTOR) and voice. Utilization of Morse and NBDP is way down. So as the various HF services between 4 and 10 MHz jockey to protect their turf against HF BC expansion, there is some creative thought being given to the question of how to get these maritime frequencies included on the WRC-07 agenda (arguably they're presently excluded) so that at minimum, some compatible sharing can be arranged to accommodate some of the fixed and mobile requirements that will be displaced by any HF BC expansion. The only HF maritime activity that's growing is -- guess what -- voice bandwidth digital data. But the present maritime service channelization scheme doesn't easily accommodate it. Having said that, I have to admit that it's inappropriate to play the "spectrum protection" card in connection with the bandwidth proposal. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv Sent: Thu 4/21/2005 4:44 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [arrl-odv:12132] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal I am very much in favor of taking a progressive approach to spectrum management and I want us to file a bandwidth petition -- though controversial among the special-pleaders, I think it's the right way to go. However, I don't see how rules that in principle open up areas of heretofore digital/CW spectrum to SSB operation represent a progressive outcome. Reliance on voluntary band plans, developed by a process that has not been defined by us let alone accepted by the Amateur community, is a leap of faith broader than I am willing to undertake happily at this time. Of course everybody is in favor of spectrum protection. But like raising the specter of communism during the Cold War and the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, invoking "spectrum protection" to gain favor for a proposal may cause temporary by-pass of our higher brain functions, producing support for things that may or may not be such good ideas taken on their own merits. The threats (communism, terrorism, WMD, spectrum loss) are real. Whether or not they are close-coupled to the case on the table at a particular time is another thing. I speak from personal experience here, having once been persuaded to vote for a motion that intellectually I did not approve of because Larry Price very effectively played the "spectrum protection" card in his speech in support of the motion. That's the one vote I cast as a Director that I wish I could take back and do over. Well, there are no do-overs when you've voted to spend a large amount of money on something, as I did, and there won't be any do-overs if we vote to allow voice operations to go where they can't go now and have no effective way to protect the experimental digital modes we intended to promote. Curbing voice operations would be likened to taking away privileges, and we know where that road goes. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

Visalia International DX Convention Report
by Richard J. Norton 21 Apr '05

21 Apr '05

I attended the 56th annual International DX Convention this past weekend in Visalia, CA. Although I was convention chairman the first time we moved the convention from Fresno to Visalia in 1978 and have been a regular attendee for 40 years, this was the first time for me as an elected ARRL official. The convention was attended by 650, plus or minus 100, amateurs. Most are DXers or contesters, but there were plenty of people present who I have have never heard work or even talk about DX or contests. They can be categorized as having some interest in HF, as convention programs often include HF equipment and HF antenna talks. Items of possible interest to the Board follow. 1) Frequency Allocation The gathering provided access to a significantly larger group of HF amateurs than I have seen at any radio club. Consequently I used the opportunity to poll a group of about 300 gathered at the end of the contest forum. I asked how many were in favor of continuing government-regulated amateur-frequency sub-bands, and how many were in favor of having the amateurs use their spectrum without government-enforced sub-bands, as is done in every other country in the world. 6 were in favor of government-regulated sub-bands. Roughly 250 were in favor of US amateurs apportioning our frequencies with tradition and voluntary bandplans. Rest assured that those six are not alone. I have found one additional proponent at a club meeting. 2) Power-Line Interference When asked if anyone had ever experienced radio interference from power-lines, the response was essentially, "Yes," from the entire room. When asked if they had reported it to their power companies, the response was again, essentially, "Yes," from everybody. However, when asked who had their power-line interference problems satisfactorily resolved, only about half responded positively. I have found that Southern California Edison, my local provider, will act only after pressure is put on them at the vice president level. Apparently not all amateurs are willing to go to this trouble. I therefore personally proceed with the rule-of-thumb that half of today's power-line interference problems are satisfactorily resolved with present practices and procedures. 3) Jack Geritsen Repeater Interference In spite of the fact that this was an HF convention, the single topic that members approached me most about was Jack Geritsen. I pointed out that there is nothing I would like to see cleared up more than the Geritsen case, but the ARRL had essentially done all that I reasonably expect that it can. There are rumors afoot that the DOJ and FCC are about to act, but similar rumors have existed for a long time. 4) Two amateurs expressed that they were "appalled" that more QST coverage was not given to the VU2RBI/VU4RBI Andaman Islands disaster story. I thanked them for their opinion, which incidentally, I do not share. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:12136] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Jim K8JE 21 Apr '05

21 Apr '05

Ill jump back in here to reassure you all that I agree, certainly, with Dick. Im not proposing we give up our leadership role in opening things up in bands. My` concern is that we may have become so focused through the years of deliberation that bandwidth is THE answer to the issue and may be overlooking other, more palatable solutions. I recognize that members of the Board family and the staff have devoted considerable excellent effort to this issue and do not intend to fault anyone. I also recognize that sometimes during the course of improving a long-established practice or item one is best served by tossing out the box rather than to put new thinking into the box. Is now the time to pitch the box on band planning rather than to improve its innards? Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:40 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12136] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal Jay, I agree with your statements, with one exception. You feel this discussion should be about what Amateurs (our members) want. Yes, that is true to a point, but do they always understand all of the issues? I think not, and I am suggesting that it is our obligation to educate them regarding why we decided to go one way or the other. Do a large majority of the Amateur population understand, or even care, what our regulatory agencies think? What about this QUOTE FROM the results of FCC NPRM RM-10740, Wednesday November 24, 2004. "4. Voluntary band planning allows amateur stations that desire to pursue different operating activities to pursue these activities by dividing or segmenting the amateur service spectrum. Voluntary band planning also allows the amateur service community the flexibility to 'reallocate' the amateur service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor." How many of our members took the time to read and understand what the FCC was trying to tell us? My guess would be, not very many and I say that based on information that I personally hear from our members when I attend club meetings. Most people, when asked about an FCC Ruling, are not aware of it or dont care about it unless it affects them personally. Many times it does, but how do they know, if they refuse to read it? My point here is that most folks tell me that they expect the ARRL to inform them of issues of importance to them via QST, the ARRL Letter or other publications. They also expect their elected officials to bring this information with them when they make club presentations. Our bandwidth proposal doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell by itself, it needs support from us and I am willing to stand by this proposal but Im not sure everyone else is. I will support the ARRL Proposal, whatever it is even if I feel it is wrong and I would be willing to do this to show a unified front to our membership based on the hard work of our Board and its working committees. I do reserve the right to be vocal about my feelings in the process and that is my intention. I suggest we do the bandplan so everyone will be able to evaluate the effects on their particular interest. At least that would offer a good starting point. I do feel we should support this proposal until someone can show reasonable proof why it is in error. We are looked upon by the membership as leaders, so lets lead by example and tell the whole story. The biggest criticism that I always hear is that we (the League) is trying to pull a fast one them. If we are open and up front with them, that criticism will not be so harsh. This kind of discussion is good and I feel we all learn from it and I personally appreciate all the input we are able to read in this forum and hope that I can contribute some meaningful thoughts into the mix. To add a little bit of humor to this dry discussion, I read in a local club newsletter, a column written by syndicated columnist Dave Barry, the following, in his article entitled Thirteen Things It Took Me Over 50 Years to Learn, There is a very fine line between hobby and mental illness. 73, Dick Dick Mondro, W8FQT <mailto:w8fqt@arrl.org> w8fqt(a)arrl.org Vice Director, ARRL Great Lakes Division <http://greatlakes.arrl.org> http://greatlakes.arrl.org _____ From: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:52 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12131] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal Dick: If this were strictly an engineering issue with known and defined parameters of users expectation I would agree the discussion is closed. Unfortunately the best engineering solution is not always what the users want. We all remember VHS vs. Beta, Mac vs. PC and Windows vs. the world. In each instance the hands down winner wasnt the technologically superior product. This discussion should address what Amateurs want and how we go about showing them there is a better alternative, IF we are convinced there is a better alternative. We need to address the needs and concerns of Amateurs and particularly our members. If that means leading them to a new paradigm, fine. Simply declaring this a better way wont do it. I believe most Amateurs love technology but are convinced Amateur Radio is apart from and purer than the telecommunications industry because hams communicate for fun and public service and the telecommunications industry is all about money. (For the record Im not opposed to having or making money.) Because Hams view themselves differently we will need to show them this change is in their best interest. So far we havent do that. Whether we can do it remains to be seen. 73, Jay, KØQB p.s. Im going into a pssive mode for a day or so. Now its time for others to chime in. JB -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:32 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12129] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal First of all, this is mostly caused by Skip Teller and his unknowing followers. Look on QRZ.com. It is a major media for bitching. The entire front page and many more pages are forums he starts and continues with much miss-information. Every forum is "don't be fooled by.....write your Director." If you want it to stop, then do exactly as he says. However, once you do, as we found out on the now two year old digital committee, he will change and oppose what he initially supported. His followers who think he knows something they don't will change as well. Unlike the ARRL, he is effectively promoting his side of the story rather than remaining silent. If this is a popularity contest, then do what the status quo wants: 95 percent SSB and the rest CW, RTTY and PSK-31. However, if you want to continue to keep up with the rest of the telecommunications industry, and maintain Amateur Radio, then you are not going to win any popularity contests. Great advice has been given by Paul Rinaldo and Chris Imlay. It is consistent with what is happening in Canada and elsewhere in the world. It is also consistent with the expressed desires of the FCC. To keep this in perspective, let's not forget that one of the main purposes for creation of the Amateur Radio Service by the government was for "Continuation and extension of the Amateurs proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art" [97.1b]. This was stated as our tradition of learning by doing. How can we learn and contribute to advancement of the radio art without the means and tools to do so? Dave makes an excellent point, we cannot know what the future will bring with regard to demand for spectrum and what modes will be popular. There may be some modes developed that we have not yet heard of today, but only if we make it possible to develop new technology. We are all, myself included, very comfortable with what we have been using for years, but we must think of the future and bite the bullet now. Look at what is being developed and used in commercial services. They have kept pace with technology using mostly software defined radios. Why is there so much demand for commercial spectrum while our Amateur allocations are mostly unused? Lets not get comfortable into thinking we will be able to hold on to that unused spectrum very much longer. In my travels around the country, I see hardly any use of VHF/UHF repeaters anymore. My HT is of no use to me any more because everyone is communicating on their cellphones! Is it not time we woke up and recognized what we see? Rather than cave in to the vocal minority, we should take the time to educate our members and explain the reasoning for what we are proposing rather than silently allowing the Skip Tellers of the world to dictate what we do. We have an excellent proposal, based on sound engineering practice and we should all endorse it for the future of our service. 73, Dick Dick Mondro, W8FQT <mailto:w8fqt@arrl.org> w8fqt(a)arrl.org Vice Director, ARRL Great Lakes Division <http://greatlakes.arrl.org> http://greatlakes.arrl.org _____ From: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:20 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12128] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal Jay, Perhaps the best example is 40 meters. We have devoted many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to defending the allocation in Region 2 and extending it in Regions 1 and 3 so as to get out from under the broadcasting interference. Yet, 1/6 of the band -- 7100 to 7150 kHz -- is practically unused in North America. There is some digital in 7100-7105, a very rare CW signal or two, and a couple of Cuban phone nets -- and that's about it. We have proposed a fix to the FCC, but the rules change -- when they finally get around to making it -- will lag the reality of what is the best use of that 50 kHz by several years. The rationale for deregulating the separation between digital data and analog phone modes is that we can't know today what the demand for spectrum access for these modes will be in the future. One thing we do know is that demand for spectrum access for a particular mode varies widely depending on what's happening on the bands at a given time. The less flexibility we have within the FCC rules, the less efficiently we can use our bands. At some point, when there's pressure on our spectrum access it will dawn on our opposition to make the argument that the amateur bands could be reduced in size if hams were forced to use their bands more efficiently -- as other services have had to do. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 3:53 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12127] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal Dave: Please amplify on how support of the allocation by bandwidth proposal will improve our chances of keeping spectrum. Jay -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12119] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal I can't speak for the rest of the EC, but I don't minimize the difficulty of coming up with band planning processes that will have broad acceptance and I don't think the rest of the committee members do, either. On the other hand, I don't see that we have much choice. Either we face up to the challenge or we settle for sub-optimal use of our limited spectrum access -- and if we do the latter, eventually it will translate into reduced spectrum access. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv Sent: Wed 4/20/2005 11:54 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [arrl-odv:12117] The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal It seems the EC Proposal presumes a workable and enforceable, band by band, HF Band Plan can be devised that will receive general acceptance for the 3 KHz and wider allocations. Admittedly modifying Band Plans does not involve the delay and inertia that accompanies the effort needed to secure a change in frequency allocations or usage by FCC. I cant help but think that garnering the necessary consensus to establish such Band Plans will not only be challenging but is likely to generate significant negative reaction among Amateurs toward ARRL. In spite of the best of intentions, Band Plans like Frequency Coordination inevitably have a Tar Baby component. I can already here the phrase There they go again welling up in the distance. What plan(s) do we or the EC have to avoid such reactions? The last thing we need at this juncture is to unnecessarily alienate members. If others feel there are good reasons to think this concern is unfounded lets talk about this now. I think we should begin this discussion now rather than in the weeks just prior to the July Board Meeting. When the allocation by bandwidth proposal was submitted I thought it an excellent opportunity to encourage experimentation particularly in digital communications. The way is has evolved seems to have changed from a way to open a door to experimentation and innovation to kicking down the walls because of the promise of digital modes. 73, Jay, KØQB -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.18 - Release Date: 4/19/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 4/20/2005 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 4/20/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 4/20/2005

1 0

[arrl-odv:12136] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Richard Mondro 21 Apr '05

21 Apr '05

Jay, I agree with your statements, with one exception. You feel this discussion should be about what Amateurs (our members) want. Yes, that is true to a point, but do they always understand all of the issues? I think not, and I am suggesting that it is our obligation to educate them regarding why we decided to go one way or the other. Do a large majority of the Amateur population understand, or even care, what our regulatory agencies think? What about this QUOTE FROM the results of FCC NPRM RM-10740, Wednesday November 24, 2004. "4. Voluntary band planning allows amateur stations that desire to pursue different operating activities to pursue these activities by dividing or segmenting the amateur service spectrum. Voluntary band planning also allows the amateur service community the flexibility to 'reallocate' the amateur service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor." How many of our members took the time to read and understand what the FCC was trying to tell us? My guess would be, not very many and I say that based on information that I personally hear from our members when I attend club meetings. Most people, when asked about an FCC Ruling, are not aware of it or dont care about it unless it affects them personally. Many times it does, but how do they know, if they refuse to read it? My point here is that most folks tell me that they expect the ARRL to inform them of issues of importance to them via QST, the ARRL Letter or other publications. They also expect their elected officials to bring this information with them when they make club presentations. Our bandwidth proposal doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell by itself, it needs support from us and I am willing to stand by this proposal but Im not sure everyone else is. I will support the ARRL Proposal, whatever it is even if I feel it is wrong and I would be willing to do this to show a unified front to our membership based on the hard work of our Board and its working committees. I do reserve the right to be vocal about my feelings in the process and that is my intention. I suggest we do the bandplan so everyone will be able to evaluate the effects on their particular interest. At least that would offer a good starting point. I do feel we should support this proposal until someone can show reasonable proof why it is in error. We are looked upon by the membership as leaders, so lets lead by example and tell the whole story. The biggest criticism that I always hear is that we (the League) is trying to pull a fast one them. If we are open and up front with them, that criticism will not be so harsh. This kind of discussion is good and I feel we all learn from it and I personally appreciate all the input we are able to read in this forum and hope that I can contribute some meaningful thoughts into the mix. To add a little bit of humor to this dry discussion, I read in a local club newsletter, a column written by syndicated columnist Dave Barry, the following, in his article entitled Thirteen Things It Took Me Over 50 Years to Learn, There is a very fine line between hobby and mental illness. 73, Dick Dick Mondro, W8FQT HYPERLINK "mailto:w8fqt@arrl.org"w8fqt(a)arrl.org Vice Director, ARRL Great Lakes Division HYPERLINK "http://greatlakes.arrl.org"http://greatlakes.arrl.org _____ From: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:52 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12131] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal Dick: If this were strictly an engineering issue with known and defined parameters of users expectation I would agree the discussion is closed. Unfortunately the best engineering solution is not always what the users want. We all remember VHS vs. Beta, Mac vs. PC and Windows vs. the world. In each instance the hands down winner wasnt the technologically superior product. This discussion should address what Amateurs want and how we go about showing them there is a better alternative, IF we are convinced there is a better alternative. We need to address the needs and concerns of Amateurs and particularly our members. If that means leading them to a new paradigm, fine. Simply declaring this a better way wont do it. I believe most Amateurs love technology but are convinced Amateur Radio is apart from and purer than the telecommunications industry because hams communicate for fun and public service and the telecommunications industry is all about money. (For the record Im not opposed to having or making money.) Because Hams view themselves differently we will need to show them this change is in their best interest. So far we havent do that. Whether we can do it remains to be seen. 73, Jay, KØQB p.s. Im going into a pssive mode for a day or so. Now its time for others to chime in. JB -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:32 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12129] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal First of all, this is mostly caused by Skip Teller and his unknowing followers. Look on QRZ.com. It is a major media for bitching. The entire front page and many more pages are forums he starts and continues with much miss-information. Every forum is "don't be fooled by.....write your Director." If you want it to stop, then do exactly as he says. However, once you do, as we found out on the now two year old digital committee, he will change and oppose what he initially supported. His followers who think he knows something they don't will change as well. Unlike the ARRL, he is effectively promoting his side of the story rather than remaining silent. If this is a popularity contest, then do what the status quo wants: 95 percent SSB and the rest CW, RTTY and PSK-31. However, if you want to continue to keep up with the rest of the telecommunications industry, and maintain Amateur Radio, then you are not going to win any popularity contests. Great advice has been given by Paul Rinaldo and Chris Imlay. It is consistent with what is happening in Canada and elsewhere in the world. It is also consistent with the expressed desires of the FCC. To keep this in perspective, let's not forget that one of the main purposes for creation of the Amateur Radio Service by the government was for "Continuation and extension of the Amateurs proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art" [97.1b]. This was stated as our tradition of learning by doing. How can we learn and contribute to advancement of the radio art without the means and tools to do so? Dave makes an excellent point, we cannot know what the future will bring with regard to demand for spectrum and what modes will be popular. There may be some modes developed that we have not yet heard of today, but only if we make it possible to develop new technology. We are all, myself included, very comfortable with what we have been using for years, but we must think of the future and bite the bullet now. Look at what is being developed and used in commercial services. They have kept pace with technology using mostly software defined radios. Why is there so much demand for commercial spectrum while our Amateur allocations are mostly unused? Lets not get comfortable into thinking we will be able to hold on to that unused spectrum very much longer. In my travels around the country, I see hardly any use of VHF/UHF repeaters anymore. My HT is of no use to me any more because everyone is communicating on their cellphones! Is it not time we woke up and recognized what we see? Rather than cave in to the vocal minority, we should take the time to educate our members and explain the reasoning for what we are proposing rather than silently allowing the Skip Tellers of the world to dictate what we do. We have an excellent proposal, based on sound engineering practice and we should all endorse it for the future of our service. 73, Dick Dick Mondro, W8FQT HYPERLINK "mailto:w8fqt@arrl.org"w8fqt(a)arrl.org Vice Director, ARRL Great Lakes Division HYPERLINK "http://greatlakes.arrl.org"http://greatlakes.arrl.org _____ From: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:20 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12128] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal Jay, Perhaps the best example is 40 meters. We have devoted many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to defending the allocation in Region 2 and extending it in Regions 1 and 3 so as to get out from under the broadcasting interference. Yet, 1/6 of the band -- 7100 to 7150 kHz -- is practically unused in North America. There is some digital in 7100-7105, a very rare CW signal or two, and a couple of Cuban phone nets -- and that's about it. We have proposed a fix to the FCC, but the rules change -- when they finally get around to making it -- will lag the reality of what is the best use of that 50 kHz by several years. The rationale for deregulating the separation between digital data and analog phone modes is that we can't know today what the demand for spectrum access for these modes will be in the future. One thing we do know is that demand for spectrum access for a particular mode varies widely depending on what's happening on the bands at a given time. The less flexibility we have within the FCC rules, the less efficiently we can use our bands. At some point, when there's pressure on our spectrum access it will dawn on our opposition to make the argument that the amateur bands could be reduced in size if hams were forced to use their bands more efficiently -- as other services have had to do. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 3:53 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12127] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal Dave: Please amplify on how support of the allocation by bandwidth proposal will improve our chances of keeping spectrum. Jay -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12119] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal I can't speak for the rest of the EC, but I don't minimize the difficulty of coming up with band planning processes that will have broad acceptance and I don't think the rest of the committee members do, either. On the other hand, I don't see that we have much choice. Either we face up to the challenge or we settle for sub-optimal use of our limited spectrum access -- and if we do the latter, eventually it will translate into reduced spectrum access. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv Sent: Wed 4/20/2005 11:54 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [arrl-odv:12117] The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal It seems the EC Proposal presumes a workable and enforceable, band by band, HF Band Plan can be devised that will receive general acceptance for the 3 KHz and wider allocations. Admittedly modifying Band Plans does not involve the delay and inertia that accompanies the effort needed to secure a change in frequency allocations or usage by FCC. I cant help but think that garnering the necessary consensus to establish such Band Plans will not only be challenging but is likely to generate significant negative reaction among Amateurs toward ARRL. In spite of the best of intentions, Band Plans like Frequency Coordination inevitably have a Tar Baby component. I can already here the phrase There they go again welling up in the distance. What plan(s) do we or the EC have to avoid such reactions? The last thing we need at this juncture is to unnecessarily alienate members. If others feel there are good reasons to think this concern is unfounded lets talk about this now. I think we should begin this discussion now rather than in the weeks just prior to the July Board Meeting. When the allocation by bandwidth proposal was submitted I thought it an excellent opportunity to encourage experimentation particularly in digital communications. The way is has evolved seems to have changed from a way to open a door to experimentation and innovation to kicking down the walls because of the promise of digital modes. 73, Jay, KØQB -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.18 - Release Date: 4/19/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 4/20/2005 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 4/20/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 4/20/2005

1 0

[arrl-odv:12135] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by k5ur＠aol.com 21 Apr '05

21 Apr '05

Rgr, Jim. Tnx. 73, Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:10:25 -0400 Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:12126] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal Rick, Good question. My sense about the level of member support for this is from the folks who approach me at meetings and hamfests. I have no definitive data. When I receive comments they most typically indicate the person is confused, at best. The second most prevalent comment is that they don’t want things to be messed with. The comments from pro-change folks is far down the list. Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:26 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12126] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal Jim: What do you base the comment on below? I'm getting very few comments about the proposal and those few that I have gotten are by far in favor of it. 73, K5UR In a message dated 4/20/2005 10:39:50 PM Central Standard Time, arrl-odv(a)arrl.org writes: I have to admit there seem to be relatively few members who are ready to accept the basics of our band plan proposal at this time.

1 0