Hi All, This is from Steve Waterman, K4CJX. I have sent him a thank you note. 73, Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: "K4CJX" <k4cjx@comcast.net> To: <wd4q@arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 8:07 AM Subject: FW: Comments to FCC concerning RM-11306 Henry, Please read, Steve, k4cjx -----Original Message----- From: Dave 'DoC' Willard [mailto:doc@mitre.org] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 07:31 To: K4CJX Subject: Re: Comments to FCC concerning RM-11306 Thanks Steve. I'm passing this thread around the local clubs and particularly among MITRE who support our PMBO. de DoC ----- Original Message ----- From: "K4CJX" <k4cjx@comcast.net> To: "'Dave 'DoC' Willard'" <doc@mitre.org>; "'Tom Frenaye'" <frenaye@pcnet.com> Cc: <w5zn@arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 01:12 Subject: RE: Comments to FCC concerning RM-11306 Doc, On just about every major Amateur reflector, and on many WEB sites, there posts by Skip Teller, "Winlink wants your frequencies" or "Robots are coming to your Phone band" or more recently, "Winlink Robots are taking over your RTTY/CW bands" with false data to support false claims. It is a shame that such a tactic can influence so many, including those who make the rules. We will all pay a heavy price for this, while those who love bashing the ARRL, or anything that disturbs the status quo are dancing in the streets. We really already have witnessed the perception of those who make the rules by not being included in the new DHS EmComm div of the FCC. With this most recent actions, it just makes all the false data "right," and giving those who do such things more fuel for their fires, and misleads those who don't know differently. Of course, to those few Commissioners, who have an awareness of all the "controversy," this is just one step close toward BPL acceptance and implementation. And in her normal style, she is leading that charge. I wonder at what level in the FCC the ARRL discussed the "controversy"? After all, there were only a total of approximately 900 comments. How many Amateurs are their in the US? I got several emails from several Directors asking me "where were all those Winlink advocates during the initial comments period"? They are not aware that their Lead Staffer, and others, recommended we not mail bomb the FCC with comments at that time, but wait until the final Comments period. Did anyone there communicate this? nope! When you get right down to it, and from the point of view of any professional EmComm agency, knowing that from the 27 US PMBOs, over 95 percent of all Winlink HF activity in the US is contained within the Part 97.221 sub-bands, provides little assurance anything will ever work when another large scale emergency takes place. There is just not enough room, not even for normal daily operations. When the ARRL asked those in the Winlink Development Team to serve for hour after hour, on an ad-hoc HF Digital Committee, and an ad-hoc ARESCOM Committee, we complied. When they asked us to expand the network topology, and make it more reliable, we complied (July, 2004 ARRL BoD Minute 21). When they asked us to expand the EmComm component, to include thousands ARES Amateurs, and many government an civil agencies (Like you have done with the Commonwealth of MA), we complied. When they accepted the recommendations of the ARESCOM Committee, per MINUTE 26 in the January, 2005, BOD meeting, and asked us to allow them to manage the network, and educate their membership, we complied. When they asked us to put the source code in Escrow, we agreed, and through the ARESCOM, we made the offer without ever receiving the courtesy of a reply. While the ARRL BOD and staff watched Skip Teller run his game, and gather support with totally absurd "facts", they started feeling the results, and thereafter, we got no reasonable responses to our queries. So, we have moved on to other volunteer services where we are accepted, and where, as volunteers, we can make a contribution that will last. You are welcomed to join us there! The migration has started, and for once, I am not discouraging it. I cannot blame anyone for wanting to see results from their efforts. And, I cannot blame the ARRL for not fighting for what they really wanted. They always cave with controversy. Thank goodness there is no "controversy" toward fighting BPL in the Amateur community. What disturbs us most is that they to this day, they have not admitted backing away from their original commitment to their "national digital network." SMOKE! At their request, the ARRL held the lead with the Winlink 2000 system for emergency communications for several years, and caved from the pressure. What is sad, they KNOW it is false information they are hearing. At least, most do. They do less and less to allow the operation they asked us to build, much less support it, leaving us holding the bag. They are still doing nothing to encourage ARES to use this system. While they do nothing, DOD/DHS and others have recognized its value, and have fully embraced and deployed a complete mirror system specifically for their own use. One can only imagine the tragic consequences of learning the valuable lessons of Katrina, the Asian Tsunami, and other such disasters, large and small, only to eliminate the very methodology that contributed so much to the saving of lives. Any mass casualty event that follows without such a capability will be difficult to explain in the next Congressional Investigation. This makes me very sad since I hate to see it shrink or disappear from the Amateur service. I have been a ham since 1955, and Amateur radio is my first love. We really thought we were making a significant contribution to both Amateur radio and the radio art, but it is not happening. So we must make a paradigm shift to agencies where we are appreciated for what we are doing. The statement by Harry Truman, sent in a recent email from Jerry Reimer to someone regarding this same subject really hits the nail on the head. However this is nothing new. I can remember when Max Arnold, a former Delta Director, came to me while I was VC for Development at Vanderbilt University (LONG AGO) and asked if I would help him develop a plan for a fund-raising department for the ARRL. It took him over two, maybe three years, before the Board would even listen. Courage and vision got in the way, and it finally passed. "Men make history, and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better." Harry S. Truman (1884-1972) Hope this helps, Steve, k4cjx -----Original Message----- From: Dave 'DoC' Willard [mailto:doc@mitre.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 14:32 To: Tom Frenaye Cc: w5zn@arrl.org Subject: Re: Comments to FCC concerning RM-11306 I understand but do not concur on that position Tom. I'm afraid the pro folks did not step up to the bat and offer comments while the con folks bombarded the ARRL and the FCC. Standby for another round. Thanks for ur response Tom. 73 de DoC, W1EO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Frenaye" <frenaye@pcnet.com> To: "Dave 'DoC' Willard" <doc@mitre.org> Cc: <w5zn@arrl.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 16:13 Subject: RE: Comments to FCC concerning RM-11306

At 11:55 AM 4/11/2007, Dave 'DoC' Willard wrote:

...

Copy of my comments to FCC.

I support RM-11306 as originally submitted by the American Radio Relay League (ARRL). I believe it will be more beneficial to the hams that provide emergency communications using digital modes with the deletion of Part 97.221 C(2)and will stimulate further digital development to "advance

...

the radio art." I do not support their revised petition.

Thanks, Doc.

Actually, I prefer the original also, but suggesting the FCC might take a small step (10m and up) now seems to be the best option given the huge number of negative comments on the record. It'd be better than having the

FCC turn it down completely.

-- 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