My follow-up response to Rich’s letter.
From: Joel
Harrison [mailto:
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007
11:11 AM
To: '
Subject: RE: CQ December Editorial
Dear Rich:
I am disappointed that my December 4 letter apparently
was not sufficiently clear. Let me try again. The first and most
important point is that the new Region 2 band plan is not the result of an ARRL
initiative and is not based on RM-11306. It is clearly and incontrovertibly
based on the Region 1 plan that was adopted in 2005, building on an agreement
in principle that was reached by the Region 1 member-societies in 2002. Your
cited source of news about the Region 2 conference, Radio Amateurs of Canada,
included this fact in its news release announcing the results of the
conference, yet you somehow managed to avoid including it either in your
editorial or in your news brief on page 4.
The ARRL is the largest and indeed, the most
influential amateur radio organization in the world. I have not suggested
otherwise. However, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the ARRL has
used its influence to promote regulation by bandwidth via the IARU, as (in your
words) an "end-run." There is ample evidence that this is not the
case, if you choose to look at it.
I do indeed understand the main point of your
editorial and have no quarrel with your desire for transparency in the ARRL's
decision making. I appreciate your recognition that the ARRL conducted an open
process in developing its original RM-11306 petition. We conducted a similar
open process in revising the ARRL 160-meter band plan in 2001; see the
committee report at:
http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0107/160-meter.html
and the Board action that followed, at Minute 57 of
the July 2001 Board Meeting:
http://www.arrl.org/announce/board-0107/
By the way, nothing that was done in
Your observation that "wideband digital modes
would be permitted for the first time in the traditional phone bands" is
simply incorrect. At present there is no bandwidth limitation on digital voice
and image transmissions in those parts of the band. Similarly, your observation
in the same paragraph regarding AM and "other wider-than-SSB analog
modes" (what exactly are they?) is incorrect; these modes are already
subject to Section 97.307(a) and would not be further restricted for the
reasons explained in my sixth paragraph.
Finally, nowhere did I suggest that participants in
ARRL contests are any more observant of band plans than those in CQ contests.
There is no question but that the Region 2 band
planning process can be improved and that the band plan itself can be further
improved. I hope that you will give our efforts in those directions a fair
evaluation as we move forward.
73 Joel W5ZN
________________________________________
From: Richard Moseson [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: CQ December Editorial
Hi Joel --
Please see the attached for my reply to your letter.
73,
Rich W2VU