I understand the history. The confusion is that there is the "Band Plan" that has been published for years, now at http://www.arrl.org/band-plan and we are now calling this latest effort to communicate a potential regulatory proposal the same thing. And let's not be confused, this proposal includes regulatory changes, it is more than just asking everyone to "play nice." The addition of Technician and Novice HF Phone privileges has been the subject of the most complaints from Southeastern members, but the overall acceptance is high, and this represents good work. There is some confusion over the exact same term having two different meanings - not by everyone, certainly not by me, likely not by anyone on this list, but by a number of our members. It IS basic semantics. Generally, the same term should not be formally defined by the same organization two different ways. Perhaps there is a suggestion to differentiate the disparate references? Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL *“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf* On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:30 AM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
The term “band plan” is valid. The term doesn’t say voluntary.
The committee doing this is the band planning committee.
Last year when we went down the rabbit hole there were two pressing issues:
1. The clash between ACDS and non ACDS users which morphed into a motion and resolution passed at the July meeting.
2. WSJT modes expanding and clashing with others (specifically FT4 ended up on an ARRL bulletin frequency on 40m)
What came out of this is what I would call a framework for getting everyone to “play nice.” Maybe some of this will end up as regulation or maybe it won’t. But it was the result of careful consideration of proposals from two warring factions, and also input from other SMEs. It is designed to reduce or prevent chaos.
Feel free to ask any one of us on the committee any further questions. Ned Stearns, AA7A and Greg Widin, K0GW are especially knowledgeable.
73 Ria, N2RJ
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:20 AM Mickey Baker <fishflorida@gmail.com> wrote:
Some confusion over the term "Band Plan."
ARRL publishes guidance for utilization of different modes within bands: http://www.arrl.org/band-plan
And now we have published these documents as a "Band Plan."
I'm assuming that the recently published documents are targeted toward suggestions for regulation. This apparently is not understood. Perhaps we should clarify the difference by using the term, "Trial Proposal for Frequency/Mode Allocation" if this is the case.
Sorry to pick nits, but I have three members who were confused... so far.
73,
Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL *“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf*
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 8:39 AM Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
Hello ALL -
It was my understanding that the roll-out of the Band-planning Committee recommendations would be done through a news story on the League Webpage, along information about the preferred method for members to comment to the Board.
The Committee report and proposed bandplan has been posted on the ARRL site, as noted in several of the social media sites. But it appears that we have no recommended method of receiving comments and parsing them to the various Division Directors and Vice Directors.
The manner of this announcement is not how I had understood that the plan was going to be introduced to the membership.
73, Kermit W9XA _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv