In the Southwestern Division at club meetings and other gatherings, I find essentially no member support of the proposed subband regulation by bandwidth. After spending time explaining the bandwidth-regulation concept to groups, I am usually able to gather some support. However, there is usually still more opposition remaining than support. There is significantly more support for completely doing away with government-subband-regulation, usually way over 50 percent. In fact, if government regulation is retained in the 40 and 20 meter bands, support for government-regulated subband elimination becomes even greater. I do not interpret a lack of receiving comments about the bandwidth proposal, while I am passively present at an event, as being implied support. I actively engage the groups in discussion on the issue. The previous message gives a picture of a typical interchange. Typical groups that I've addressed include: Southern California DX Club - 45 present - 100% HF RV Service Net (a 40-meter phone net) - 23 present - 100% HF Crescenta Valley Radio Club - 18 present - 30% HF Inland Empire Council of Amateur Radio Organizations - 35 present - 55% HF Supersystem Repeater Group - 27 present - 40% HF Visalia DX Convention Contest Forum - 200+ present - 100% HF Response to initial questions shown in previous E-mail: 2.1 HF operation? - Varies by group. See above for percentages. 2.2 - Familiar with bandwidth proposal? - Usually over 80%. 2.3 - Initially support for bandwidth proposal? - Exactly one person (at the Crescenta Valley Club) was in favor. There were none initially in support at any other meeting! 2.4 - Opposed to bandwidth proposal? - Generally way over 50%, up to 100%. 2.5 - Inadequate information? - Generally close to 100%. Summary: Essentially nobody involved in any of these bandwidth-regulation discussions starts off being in favor of the ARRL proposal. Responses to Questions Asked After the Bandwidth Discussion: 12.1 - After discussions, how many are in favor of the bandwidth proposal? - Typically some support. Rarely over 50% support. 12.2 - After discussions, how many oppose? - Usually over 50%. 12.3 - Did the discussion change your opinion at all? - Some positive response. Typically 20%. 12.4 - Support for elimination of all government-regulated subbands? - Significantly greater than support for bandwidth regulation. One exception, at the Inland Empire Council, 12 were in favor of bandwidth and 8 were in favor of total subband regulation elimination. More typical would be the Southern California DX Club, where about 8 were in favor of bandwidth and 35 were in favor of elimination. It would be greater than 35 in favor if "CW bands" were preserved on 20 and 40 meters. The other bands were not believed to need government-regulation. 12.5 - Support for concept of somehow adjusting for changes in band use such as in the 15-meter novice band? - Essentially unanimous. 12.6 - Support for FCC regulations that effectively provide QRM-free foreign phone bands? - Absolutely zero. I have not found a single person supporting restricting USA phone operation in a way that will provide foreign phone bands. --------------------- Summary: Even after the bandwidth-regulation proposal has been explained, support for it is at best lukewarm, and opposition is generally higher. Given the response I've received, I would be surprised to find that there is significant support in the other divisions. Alternate Approaches: If, instead of prefacing my initial questions with "I am not sure if I will support this proposal at the Board meeting," I had said, "This bandwidth-regulation proposal is a really good idea," possibly some of the voters might have been swayed to respond in favor of it. If I left out the discussion about the rest of the world not having any subband regulation, it might have changed the post-discussion poll outcome. I don't believe either of those two options would have resulted in a more equitable poll. Other Member Inputs: I do not recall having received a single E-mail saying, "The ARRL bandwidth-regulation proposal is a great idea. Please support it." I have received a number of E-mails in opposition. Conclusion: Even if the bandwidth-regulation proposal is an outstanding idea, it is not presently supported by our membership. Advancing it without some serious selling has the potential to upset a significant number of our members. More comments on the proposal will follow. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA