Great thinking, Jay. Thanks.
Andy Oppel, N6AJO
At 07:25 AM 5/4/2005, you wrote:
In Dave’s recent “It Seems To Us” he
suggested there are three guiding principles behind the Bandwidth
Proposal:
1) If Amateur Radio is too thrive and hold its own against competing
Commercial attempts to grab or frequencies we need FCC rules changes that
can stand the test of time for at least 5 to 10 years.
2) Amateur HF operating patterns and technology are shifting. As
they evolve the FCC Rules need to accommodate both that change and
current uses.
3) The FCC rules and system for modifying the Rules are to slow and
inflexible to meet necessary changes.
Up to now the focus hasn’t been on the reasons why the Proposal is
needed. The discussion has been Hijacked by the Pro and Anti Winlink
zealots and the Pro and Anti automatic and semi-automatic zealots. So
long as we continue to let them frame the message and dictate the
discussion we can forget about any meaningful consideration of reasons
for the Bandwidth Proposal.
The purpose of the proposal was to strengthen and protect the Amateur
Radio Service. The purpose of the proposal was to provide a means to
evolve cooperatively to meet and adjust to changes. The purpose was
to………..
Either we figure out what our purpose is and how to frame the message and
discussion and take back the discussion or we are consigning ourselves to
a Summer of moderating a “Winlink Rules”, “Winlink is the Devil”
shouting match with no resolution in sight.. (If you prefer you can
insert “automatic/semi-automatic operation” for Winlink in the prior
sentence.)
Let’s get the discussion back on the reasons behind the Proposal. Let’s
move the spotlight to the reasons for the Proposal and make it clear the
Winlink and automatic/semi-automatic discussion are on the periphery not
the center of the discussions. If we can’t do that, let’s move on to
something we can do.
73,
Jay, KØQB