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@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@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