If we do a survey, it should be designed and preformed in all Divisions at once, so to get a better accurate picture. I agree with Tom, " 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." 73, Greg Sarratt, W4OZK _____ 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