X-GANYMEDE-MailScanner-SpamScoss X-MailScanner-From: ae327@lafn.org Return-Path: ae327@lafn.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 May 2005 18:21:25.0482 (UTC) FILETIME=[69C98CA0:01C55268] Here's your chance to start your Bandwidth Proposal education campaign. Educate a neophyte Director! I have read background material regarding the proposal's raison d'etre. "A key principle underlying the League initiative is that the amateur community must shoulder the responsibility for resolving conflicts among potentially conflicting modes and not expect--or wait for--the FCC to impose its own solutions." The EC's offering then proposes a complex, government-enforced, bandwidth sub-allocation scheme, with sub-allocation boundaries as straightforward as "14112 kHz," and "see text for information about AM and ISB emissions." Then, the web-site explanation states, "However, using the FCC rules to subdivide the amateur HF bands is the wrong approach. The FCC rules are too static and too difficult to change." Huh? Ignore, for the time being, the probability that the FCC might ever actually approve such a scheme, particularly given their response to the League's less-controversial restructuring proposal. Nowhere but in the United States, do governments establish and enforce amateur radio subband allocations. Why is the USA's National Association for Amateur Radio attempting to sell this complex, government-enforced, approach instead of joining the rest of the world? I've received relevant member comment about specific alleged proposal shortcomings including 1) -26dB point issues, 2) lack of accommodation of Wider-bandwidth, "enhanced" SSB, and 3) inconsistencies in treatment of classic AM and other wider-band modes. If the EC's proposal was an early cut at a voluntary bandplan, it would seem reasonable. I don't see how casting even a cleaned-up detailed scheme in concrete as law-to-be-enforced-by-government, meets the stated objectives. I've had overwhelming support from groups favoring replacement of FCC designated sub-allocations with voluntary bandplans (Roughly 350 in-favor to 7 opposed). I do discuss how other amateurs, worldwide, do apportion their frequencies before polling the groups. QUESTION: What is the reason that the EC/Board is pushing to retain government-enforced sub-allocations? Why don't we join the rest of the world? Why can't the FCC simply allocate HF bands to us, with a maximum bandwidth like other countries, and let us handle our own mode or bandwidth sub-allocations? 73, Dick Norton, N6AA