These are the notes from the Executive Committee's conference call of July 1. The only topic discussed was the NPRM on 5 MHz. You have seen the filing which resulted from the discussion, so there should be few surprises. A tidier version will be prepared and made available to members along with other Minutes on the web site as soon as possible. 73 - Kay N3KN

This is a rough summary of our discussion last night. Chris will have draft comments for us.

1. Substitution of one channel for another? - approved.

2. Power increase from 50w to 100w ERP? - approved.

3. Additional modes besides USB, 60H0J2B, CW, 2K80J2D? - No. Our deal with NTIA was for these emission types. FCC Rules should indicate emission types, not mode names such as PACTOR-3. Issues identified: (1) being able to clear a channel fast if federal users need to use it, (2) discouraging channel-hogging by Amateur users of any particular emission type, (3) Educating hams about what the emission designators mean. ARRL commits to strong educational effort to minimize the chances of conflict with the feds and conflict among users of various emission types, and to inform hams what the emission designators mean. Major concern was expressed and discussed that habitual failure to listen before transmitting on non-voice modes will lead to trouble with the feds. We prefer to rely on education and band planning rather than have inflexible FCC regulatory restrictions on which modes can use what channels. Hams must be convinced that irresponsible operating will lead to loss of the channels and also destroy our chance of ever getting a band allocation.

4. CW and PSK31 to operate only on center frequency? - opposed. We will not offer a specific counter-proposal but rather argue that restricting these narrow band modes to one QSO per channel at any given time is a poor use of spectrum. Considerable discussion followed on how hams would know where to set their VFOs for non-USB modes. ARRL commits to educational effort to ensure that hams have the information we need in order to operate responsibly, as we did with USB when the channels were first granted.

5. Time limit for data transmissions? - opposed. We will argue for educating hams about the importance of keeping transmissions short and listening before transmitting.

6. ALE? - We assume this means digital selective calling, not data transmission. We do not favor it but will not take a position at this point in the proceeding. Reply comments may be needed on this topic, depending on comments of others.

7. VOX operation on phone? - We see VOX as one of several possible means for keeping transmissions short and ensuring that feds can grab a channel if they need to use it. We agreed to VOX as part of the deal with NTIA for increasing the power limit so outright opposition to VOX now would not be okay. However, the point is well taken than in a noisy environment VOX can cause problems. A rule requiring VOX is unenforceable; we do not support unenforceable rules. Without reneging on our deal with NTIA we can argue that VOX should be one of several options but not a requirement.

Our comments will include reference to our desire for a traditional band at 5 MHz. Although this is unlikely to be granted in the near future, we want to be on record as still favoring a band. In fact, having a band rather than discrete channels would make for greater regulatory simplicity.

The ARRL will have to develop a band plan and a set of best practices for 5 MHz and engage in a strong educational effort to achieve cooperation. Discussion of the negative consequences of overly-aggressive operating may need to happen between the ARRL and leaders of the Winlink network and possibly also with influential leaders of other mode communities. Individuals who operate irresponsibly may be brought to the attention of Laura Smith, if peer-pressure (including OO notices) fails.

73 - Kay N3KN