Dave, thanks for the background references. They should be helpful. In your message you referred to the EC and "its view over time" regarding the bandwidth proposal in general and more particularly semi-automatic operation. As a point of clarification it is worth noting the membership of the EC has also changed over time. In 2004 only one Director member carried over from the previous committee and in 2005 two of the five Director members were new to the committee. The EC recommendations may have changed, whether the views of the constituent members of the EC over time have correspondingly changed is less clear. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 8:25 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12193] Re: Bandplan Proposal & Marketing For those of you looking for an explanation of "why" we started down the road toward regulation by bandwidth in the first place, a good starting point is the Op-Ed by Mark Miller N5RFX, in May 2004 QST (page 91). Next, see the September 2004 QST editorial (page 9), "Regulation by Bandwidth." Again, the focus is on "why." That's with regard to the broad question of why we need to move away from FCC regulation by mode of emission to regulation by bandwidth. Unless you're dealing with someone whose kneejerk reaction to any and all change is to oppose it, explaining this is rather easy. HF digital operation is growing in popularity and scope, and if someone's interest is in protecting traditional modes -- and they understand how little protection is afforded by the present rules -- then they realize some changes are needed. If the existing rules are simply left in place and technology develops as it inevitably will, there's nothing to prevent collisions between analog voice and digital voice/image in the "phone bands," or between CW and the growing variety of digital data modes in the "CW bands" (including the use of much wider bandwidths than we now consider normal). The narrower question of why the EC is recommending dropping the existing restrictions on semiautomatic operation and separating voice (both analog and digital) from non-voice digital modes is one on which the EC itself has changed its view over time, and on which the Board has not adopted a position. I can try to explain the rationale for the EC's recommendations, as I've done via quotes Rick Lindquist has included in the Web story and in the June editorial, but at this point the EC's recommendations are not ARRL policy. The Board may decide in July to do something different. Those of us who were in Denver less than three weeks ago presumably still think the EC recommendations are a good package, but the rest of you are not obliged to agree. There can and should be healthy discussion of the pros and cons between now and July, including an exploration of how to address the weak points in the recommendations -- such as the fact that the existing mechanisms for reviewing and updating band plans are inadequate. It's been almost three years since the Board started the process of updating the regulatory framework from mode of emission to bandwidth. There was a need to do so, and that need has been explained over and over. The details are still under discussion, and members (and others) are welcome to participate. In short, we're doing exactly what we ought to be doing. Dave K1ZZ