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

RE: [arrl-odv:12126] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Jim K8JE 21 Apr '05

21 Apr '05

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

[arrl-odv:12132] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Kay Craigie 21 Apr '05

21 Apr '05

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

[arrl-odv:12131] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by John Bellows 21 Apr '05

21 Apr '05

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

1 0

[arrl-odv:12130] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by John Bellows 21 Apr '05

21 Apr '05

Dave: I dont underestimate the difficulty of the 40 meter efforts or your efforts accomplishing the result. As you noted part of the 40 meter issue was lack of usagein portions of the band. We run the biggest risk of losing spectrum from lack of usage. We need to encourage activity on the bands, but what evidence do we have that moving to allocation by bandwidth model will increase usage sufficiently to put commercial interests coveting our bands at bay? It seems to me that the question of band usage and universal digital usage in 3 KHz segments are being blurred. While it is true that we cant know what the demand for spectrum access by modes will be in the future it is equally true we dont have a good handle on what the compatibility of those modes will be in the future. The 40 meter effort is a prime example of incompatible usage and how one mode (European AM broadcast) can essentially eliminate other uses in a given band segment. My concern is that once the toothpaste is out of the tube it will be impossible to put it back in. My understanding of the original premise of the Allocation by Bandwidth proposal was to foster experimentation particularly in the digital field, group users rationally, AND minimize impact on current users. As I said before the current version seems to potentially that premise at risk by unnecessarily combining incompatible modes. We are relying on band plans to address this issue within the Service. If the missives from the Winlink Pro and Con factions are any indication of the disposition to compromise on issues of usage, establishing a band plan could amount to trying to mediate a Range War between Ranchers and Farmers. This is not a decision that will with an easy solution on one side and a troublesome solution on the other. 73, Jay, KØQB . -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 6:20 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

1 0

[arrl-odv:12129] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Richard Mondro 21 Apr '05

21 Apr '05

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

1 0

[arrl-odv:12128] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 21 Apr '05

21 Apr '05

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 can't 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 let's 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

1 0

[arrl-odv:12127] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by John Bellows 21 Apr '05

21 Apr '05

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

1 0

[arrl-odv:12126] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by K5ur＠aol.com 21 Apr '05

21 Apr '05

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

[arrl-odv:12125] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Bruce Frahm K0BJ 21 Apr '05

21 Apr '05

I too am glad to see this discussion come up now. The single point I'd like to highlight is this: Most of the rest of the amateur radio world uses voluntary bandplanning rather than formal regulation to control emission types, bandwidths and other characteristics. Granted, this is the way it's ALWAYS been for them, and it hasn't for us in a long time. But, can't we reasonably suspect that we'll be able to reach that point sooner rather than later? Isn't the behavior on 160 during mode-specific contests a good indication we'll be able to control our own destinies logically, and not only formulate and conform to bandplans, but make them to some extent dynamically allocable? 73 Bruce

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:12119] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal
by Jim K8JE 21 Apr '05

21 Apr '05

To follow up on Jays excellent question, 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. They like the idea of promoting experimentation with new forms and variations of transmission, but seem to believe what we are considering is quite excessive. Having said this, I wonder if we could accomplish essentially the same goal without turning the regulation of band plans upside down? Could we simply develop and propose a regulation that will take the shackles off of testing of new modes or variations of modes without becoming specifically involved in transmitted bandwidths? 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: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:25 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

1 0