This approach makes a lot of sense to me. This is why: In the 6 weeks that I've been a vice director (is that all it has been?) I've been inundated with comments about "the ARRL should do this..." and "why doesn't the ARRL..." and close to half the time, my answer is "they do" What that tells me is that we're having trouble getting the word out to those last layers of amateur radio about what we are doing, what we'd like input on, and where we need help. I'm sure every one of you has had a similar experience, and I would hope, similar thoughts from that. While this messaging issue is a discussion for another day, I do think that we need to take a lesson from it. Mickey is right about the need to have strong support before we go to the FCC. I've never approached a city council without having at least 2/3 of the neighborhood leaders supporting the position. It makes them feel safe in moving in the direction we're asking them to. The changes need to be proceeded by clear, simple messaging on why the proposed change is good, has no 'bad stuff' associated with it, and would not change the way 'the recipient (of the message)' would go about enjoying amateur radio (except those that would benefit from the change by new access.) A poll could be a great tool for getting that message out (among other channels.) The key is getting the word out all the way out to those last layers. A poll would cause those that would be inclined to comment to the FCC to comment to us first and not only could we see how opinion is running, but they would (by default) come to our messaging on the topic. The messages would have to be simple and more or less undeniable in their logic. This is one tool, but I see it as something we can use for lots of different issues. 73, Grant Grant Hopper, KB7WSD ARRL Northwest Division, Vice Director -----Original Message----- From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 7:09 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18732] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz ODV, For the past several weeks I've been thinking along a similar line as Dick suggests below, although my idea is that we might need to stop at 3700 kHz rather than go up to 3750. Last week I emailed Jackie Cornell at HQ to see if I could use Zoomerang to survey the Delta Division members on this idea and perhaps other issues as well. (Jackie has not replied to my email yet.) I think we need to try very hard to win over as many members as possible before we approach the FCC on opening up this slice of 80 meters to all modes and licensees. Perhaps we should conduct a national poll rather than just some divisional polls. If we don't conduct a national poll, however, I would like to work with the other directors who are planning to survey their members in the near future (i.e., before the July Board meeting). The ham community is not ready to make wholesale changes in our regulations regarding modes/subbands, etc., but we might be successful in convincing enough folks to support opening up 100 or 150 kHz on 80, perhaps at least on a trial basis of two or three years. 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard J. Norton" <richardjnorton@gmail.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 5:32 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:18731] Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz
In response to requests from CW traffic net operators, I suggest that the ARRL petition the FCC to open up the 3600 to 3750 kHz segment to all license classes for CW and digital modes. There have also been rumblings from digital-mode operators requesting that they also be allowed to use those frequencies again. Most of the time, those frequencies are fairly empty.
I believe the CW traffic people should be able to use them as they did previously, but also the Extra Class phone operators who were given the frequencies a few years by the FCC. I noticed no benefit to Amateur Radio as a whole obtained by pushing the CW nets out of those frequencies, or restricting their operation to Extra Class licensees which produces the same end result.
I believe we amateurs can manage our presence on that portion of the band quite adequately as we now do on 160 meters, and as essentially the rest of the world does on all bands.
I suggest introducing this to Bill Cross in a way structured to gain his support. That is to say, expansion of the 75-meter phone band has proven to have been useful. However, there are times when the lower segment of the band is very lightly used and the CW nets and digital-mode users would like to now share the frequencies they formerly exclusively used.
I've discussed this with a few of you by telephone and the idea has received support. I'll use this E-mail as a means of reaching the rest of you rapidly, and soliciting any comments you may have.
Thanks.
73,
Dick Norton, N6AA