FWIW,
At some point we are going to have to
start thinking about how we are going to accommodate new digital modes- whether
created by voice/audio sampling or CG. Data stream is just that- data stream and
we need to be eyeing the future and the eventuality of digital transmissions becoming
more prevalent in our modes of communications. Food for thought ladies and gentlemen-
we need to be evolving with the technology.
Perhaps it is time to pose the question, couching
it in the context of advancing technologies. We will need to go about this carefully
as I agree with Dir. Frenaye’s assessment, but
we do need to be thinking about where we need to be heading WRT band plans as
technology changes.
73 ES TNX
Vice Director, Delta Div.
-----Original Message-----
From: k0gw@arrl.org
[mailto:k0gw@arrl.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:47
PM
To: arrl-odv
Cc: arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:18759] Re:
Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz
FWIW, I
agree with Selectman Frenaye. I know being politically realistic isn't
necessarily popular, but I do believe that it is sometimes appropriate. Regardless
of opinion (of our members or our own), I believe that we have a vanishingly
small chance of getting anything changed in the 80m assignment.
On a separate part of the issue, 160m has been invoked as an example of how 80m
could work out with multiple modes being allowed in a large band segment.
My view of 80m, or perhaps more properly 75m, is that cooperation seems to be
outside the interests of enough operators to wreck any kind of cooperative band
planning.
Re: Mickey's survey, I feel it runs a serious risk that K1KI has pointed out:
> I
wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think
> there is a path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations
and
> then looking impotent - which we are sometimes.
So, while I think the
change in allocation was a mistake of the first order, it is hard for me to
support another run at it.
73 de
Greg, K0GW
----- Original Message -----
From: "k8je" <k8je@zoomtown.com>
To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 2:57:32 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18757] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital
Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz
Mickey,
I have no problem with what you plan.
Jim
Jim Weaver, K8JE
5065 Bethany Rd.
Mason, OH 45040
E-mail: k8je@zoomtown.com; Tel. 459-1661
-----Original Message-----
From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:02 PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:18757] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 -
3750 kHz
Jim and Tom,
I'm planning to include the following statements in my upcoming division
survey:
1. The amount of spectrum currently allocated to General and Advanced
licensees for CW, RTTY, and data transmissions on 80 meters (3525-3600 kHz)
is adequate.
2. The 3600 to 3700 kHz segment currently reserved exclusively to Amateur
Extra licensees on 80 meters is underutilized.
3. Similar to 160 meters, the segment from 3600 to 3700 kHz on 80 meters
should be available to all Amateur Extra, Advanced, and General licensees
using CW, phone, image, RTTY, and data modes.
My members will be asked to choose between strongly agree, agree, neutral,
disagree, or strongly disagree to indicate as much they agree with the above
(and some additional) statements. If a strong majority of my members
indicate that they are happy/satisfied with the status quo regarding the
3600 to 3700 kHz segment, I will probably not pursue this issue any further.
Although I personally would like to see more room for the CW traffic nets on
80 meters, the bigger picture here is that if the 3600-3700 segment is
opened up in a similar fashion to 160 meters, we might demonstrate to both
the FCC and the ham community that we don't need the overly complicated and
restrictive regulations we currently have. If the Board really wants to
pursue something along the lines of "regulation by bandwidth" again,
I think
this approach is the correct one.
In any event, I think conducting an occasional survey of my division members
(this will be my first one) is politically smart, particularly if my future
actions as a Board member are reasonably consistent with the viewpoints of
my members.
73, K5MC
----- Original Message -----
From: "K8JE" <k8je@arrl.org>
To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:23 PM
Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to
3600 - 3750 kHz
> Mickey, et al,
>
> I agree with Tom. There also are a couple of additional thoughts
that
> come
> to mind in this discussion.
>
> After the initial batch of complaints (by the Board, CW ops and other
> hams)
> over the FCC ruling, the GLD has been unusually quiet on the topic.
I
> don't
> recall receiving a single complaint during at least the past year. With
> the
> exception of a few stalwarts, my understanding is that CW nets in this
> Division are gradually fading away . . . unfortunately.
>
> This leads to the second of the thoughts which is that if anything,
> stirring
> the pot to expand the frequencies usable by nets would truly please only a
> few and could stir up the displeasure of many more. Included among
these
> "more" could be those who continue to believe CW is an archaic
mode that
> proves Amateur Radio is a thing of the past. Expansion of digital
> privileges would help counter this argument, but itself would probably
> create at least as much dissatisfaction among none-digi ops as it would
> satisfaction among the digi community. At least, this is my take
from
> this
> Division.
>
> At least for now, I am ambivalent over the suggestion and would need to
> hear
> more before considering it more thoroughly.
>
> 73,
>
> Jim
>
>
> Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director
> ARRL Great Lakes Division
> 5065 Bethany Rd.
> Mason, OH 45040
> E-mail: k8je@arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661
> ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:20 AM
> To: arrl-odv
> Subject: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to
> 3600 -
> 3750 kHz
>
> At 10:08 AM 3/25/2010, Mickey Cox wrote:
>>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.
>
> Mickey -
>
> I don't think the holdup would be the ham community, it would be the FCC.
> It would be very unusual for them to re-examine an issue they decided less
> than five years ago, and especially unusual for them to reverse
> themselves,
> even though I agree that they made a bad mistake. I also think
you'll
> find
> most Board members agree that it was badly handled by the FCC.
>
> So the question is really when do we go back and raise the question
> again -
> and for that I'd defer to Chris/Kay/Dave for their expertise. If we
go
> too
> early, it will just push the time for possible change out another five or
> more years... Plus, as we learned even in the "simple"
spread spectrum
> NPRM
> that just came out, we can ask for something that seems reasonable and the
> FCC will screw us... (I think K5UR trademarked that phrase. )
>
> I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think
> there is a path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations
and
> then looking impotent - which we are sometimes.
>
> -- Tom
>
>
> =====
> e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director
> http://www.arrl.org/
> Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
>
>
>
>
>