I am having trouble separating the Bandwidth regulation proposal from a discussion of meaningful and enforceable band planning. Dont regulation and enforcement go hand in hand? Without enforcement regulations are at best a suggestion to people of good will. A commodity that is sometimes in too short supply. A central theme of the bandwidth proposal has been the FCC is too slow and unresponsive to meet our need to adjust allocation and mode changes in a rapidly evolving technological environment. An increased use of HF band plans has been suggested as a more flexible tool to establish relevant rules of the HF road in this changing environment. Either band plans are a viable, enforceable tool in the FCC environment or they arent. If they arent and we dont have a plan to make them enforceable or arent presently working on a plan to make them enforceable, why are we discussing them as part of an alternative to the present FCC regulatory system? A good case has been made that we need to be more flexible in adapting to the constant change in technology. What is less clear is whether the bandwidth allocation proposal, absent the ability to use meaningful and enforceable band plan meets that need. Without meaningful and enforceable band plan the question remains whether the bandwidth proposal exchanges the current set of problems and difficulties for a new, equally challenging and equally inflexible set of problems and difficulties based upon our guess as to the technological environment over the next 5 to 10 years. With the information at hand my crystal ball isnt clear enough to make that leap, so long as the new regulations are going to be as restrictive and inflexible as the current regulations. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:42 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12175] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal Quite honestly, I don't seen a need in having Riley address the board again......I can give his speech, its the same one he has given to us each and every time he has been there. I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with your comment that this has very little to do with bandwidth regulation but is a separate and much broader issue we will have to address in the near future. We need to start planning in that area and that is where we need to involve Riley, rather than another ARRL paid vacation to HQ. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: W3KD@aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 8:27 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12174] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal In a message dated 4/25/2005 10:40:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, K8JE@arrl.org writes: All this suggests that any new band planning we expect FCC to adopt will need to be rather simple to enforce using only minimal staffing. Jim, your summary of Riley's remarks is of great concern. It would appear that he has concluded that upon his retirement, there will not be anyone as dedicated to the cause as he is. As to "minimal staffing", clearly we are there. The FCC does do "split jobs" in some cases, and Riley is not spending all his time on Amateur Radio enforcement. He does land mobile enforcement also. So it is hard to imagine FCC devoting "less" resources to Amateur Radio enforcement than it does now, and there is, almost by definition, no method to make band plans self-enforcing; hence my stated concern of yesterday. This has very little to do with the bandwidth regulation issue, I think. I view the enforcement situation as distinct, separate and much broader an issue, and something to which we should turn our attention in the very near term. Perhaps we should have Riley address the Board again, as he has done on several occasions, and strategize with him. As Rod Stafford will attest, having been the ARRL's point person in the FCC's return to enforcement in the Amateur Service, we rely on deterrence almost exclusively. Riley has not been as "active" in doing actual enforcement as he has been visible and omnipresent. FCC in-your-face works wonders with very little resources expended. That was Richard Lee's strategy and Riley adopted it. Somehow, that concept has to continue going forward post-Riley-retirement. Otherwise, we will slump back into the dark times. As Joel Harrison has said correctly many times, the real Godfather of Amateur Radio enforcement was Richard Lee, who is still at FCC and in need of a job. That option needs exploring. 73, Chris W3KD