Jay, I agree with your statements, with one exception. You feel this discussion should be about what Amateurs (our members) want. Yes, that is true to a point, but do they always understand all of the issues? I think not, and I am suggesting that it is our obligation to educate them regarding why we decided to go one way or the other. Do a large majority of the Amateur population understand, or even care, what our regulatory agencies think? What about this QUOTE FROM the results of FCC NPRM RM-10740, Wednesday November 24, 2004. "4. Voluntary band planning allows amateur stations that desire to pursue different operating activities to pursue these activities by dividing or segmenting the amateur service spectrum. Voluntary band planning also allows the amateur service community the flexibility to 'reallocate' the amateur service spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor." How many of our members took the time to read and understand what the FCC was trying to tell us? My guess would be, not very many and I say that based on information that I personally hear from our members when I attend club meetings. Most people, when asked about an FCC Ruling, are not aware of it or don’t care about it unless it affects them personally. Many times it does, but how do they know, if they refuse to read it? My point here is that most folks tell me that they expect the ARRL to inform them of issues of importance to them via QST, the ARRL Letter or other publications. They also expect their elected officials to bring this information with them when they make club presentations. Our bandwidth proposal doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell by itself, it needs support from us and I am willing to stand by this proposal but I’m not sure everyone else is. I will support the ARRL Proposal, whatever it is even if I feel it is wrong and I would be willing to do this to show a unified front to our membership based on the hard work of our Board and its working committees. I do reserve the right to be vocal about my feelings in the process and that is my intention. I suggest we do the bandplan so everyone will be able to evaluate the effects on their particular interest. At least that would offer a good starting point. I do feel we should support this proposal until someone can show reasonable proof why it is in error. We are looked upon by the membership as leaders, so let’s lead by example and tell the whole story. The biggest criticism that I always hear is that we (the League) is trying to pull a fast one them. If we are open and up front with them, that criticism will not be so harsh. This kind of discussion is good and I feel we all learn from it and I personally appreciate all the input we are able to read in this forum and hope that I can contribute some meaningful thoughts into the mix. To add a little bit of humor to this dry discussion, I read in a local club newsletter, a column written by syndicated columnist Dave Barry, the following, in his article entitled Thirteen Things It Took Me Over 50 Years to Learn, “There is a very fine line between “hobby” and “mental illness.” 73, Dick Dick Mondro, W8FQT HYPERLINK "mailto:w8fqt@arrl.org"w8fqt@arrl.org Vice Director, ARRL Great Lakes Division HYPERLINK "http://greatlakes.arrl.org"http://greatlakes.arrl.org _____ From: arrl-odv@arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:52 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12131] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal Dick: If this were strictly an engineering issue with known and defined parameters of users expectation I would agree the discussion is closed. Unfortunately the best engineering solution is not always what the users want. We all remember VHS vs. Beta, Mac vs. PC and Windows vs. the world. In each instance the hands down winner wasn’t the technologically superior product. This discussion should address what Amateurs want and how we go about showing them there is a better alternative, IF we are convinced there is a better alternative. We need to address the needs and concerns of Amateurs and particularly our members. If that means leading them to a new paradigm, fine. Simply declaring this a better way won’t do it. I believe most Amateurs love technology but are convinced Amateur Radio is apart from and “purer” than the telecommunications industry because hams communicate for fun and public service and the telecommunications industry is all about money. (For the record I’m not opposed to having or making money.) Because Hams view themselves differently we will need to show them this change is in their best interest. So far we haven’t do that. Whether we can do it remains to be seen. 73, Jay, KØQB p.s. I’m going into a pssive mode for a day or so. Now its time for others to chime in. JB -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv@arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:32 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12129] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal First of all, this is mostly caused by Skip Teller and his unknowing followers. Look on QRZ.com. It is a major media for bitching. The entire front page and many more pages are forums he starts and continues with much miss-information. Every forum is "don't be fooled by.....write your Director." If you want it to stop, then do exactly as he says. However, once you do, as we found out on the now two year old digital committee, he will change and oppose what he initially supported. His followers who think he knows something they don't will change as well. Unlike the ARRL, he is effectively promoting his side of the story rather than remaining silent. If this is a popularity contest, then do what the status quo wants: 95 percent SSB and the rest CW, RTTY and PSK-31. However, if you want to continue to keep up with the rest of the telecommunications industry, and maintain Amateur Radio, then you are not going to win any popularity contests. Great advice has been given by Paul Rinaldo and Chris Imlay. It is consistent with what is happening in Canada and elsewhere in the world. It is also consistent with the expressed desires of the FCC. To keep this in perspective, let's not forget that one of the main purposes for creation of the Amateur Radio Service by the government was for "Continuation and extension of the Amateurs proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art" [97.1b]. This was stated as our tradition of learning by doing. How can we learn and contribute to advancement of the radio art without the means and tools to do so? Dave makes an excellent point, we cannot know what the future will bring with regard to demand for spectrum and what modes will be popular. There may be some modes developed that we have not yet heard of today, but only if we make it possible to develop new technology. We are all, myself included, very comfortable with what we have been using for years, but we must think of the future and bite the bullet now. Look at what is being developed and used in commercial services. They have kept pace with technology using mostly software defined radios. Why is there so much demand for commercial spectrum while our Amateur allocations are mostly unused? Let’s not get comfortable into thinking we will be able to hold on to that unused spectrum very much longer. In my travels around the country, I see hardly any use of VHF/UHF repeaters anymore. My HT is of no use to me any more because everyone is communicating on their cellphones! Is it not time we woke up and recognized what we see? Rather than cave in to the vocal minority, we should take the time to educate our members and explain the reasoning for what we are proposing rather than silently allowing the Skip Tellers of the world to dictate what we do. We have an excellent proposal, based on sound engineering practice and we should all endorse it for the future of our service. 73, Dick Dick Mondro, W8FQT HYPERLINK "mailto:w8fqt@arrl.org"w8fqt@arrl.org Vice Director, ARRL Great Lakes Division HYPERLINK "http://greatlakes.arrl.org"http://greatlakes.arrl.org _____ From: arrl-odv@arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:20 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12128] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal Jay, Perhaps the best example is 40 meters. We have devoted many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to defending the allocation in Region 2 and extending it in Regions 1 and 3 so as to get out from under the broadcasting interference. Yet, 1/6 of the band -- 7100 to 7150 kHz -- is practically unused in North America. There is some digital in 7100-7105, a very rare CW signal or two, and a couple of Cuban phone nets -- and that's about it. We have proposed a fix to the FCC, but the rules change -- when they finally get around to making it -- will lag the reality of what is the best use of that 50 kHz by several years. The rationale for deregulating the separation between digital data and analog phone modes is that we can't know today what the demand for spectrum access for these modes will be in the future. One thing we do know is that demand for spectrum access for a particular mode varies widely depending on what's happening on the bands at a given time. The less flexibility we have within the FCC rules, the less efficiently we can use our bands. At some point, when there's pressure on our spectrum access it will dawn on our opposition to make the argument that the amateur bands could be reduced in size if hams were forced to use their bands more efficiently -- as other services have had to do. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 3:53 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12127] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal Dave: Please amplify on how support of the allocation by bandwidth proposal will improve our chances of keeping spectrum. Jay -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv@arrl.org [mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12119] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal I can't speak for the rest of the EC, but I don't minimize the difficulty of coming up with band planning processes that will have broad acceptance and I don't think the rest of the committee members do, either. On the other hand, I don't see that we have much choice. Either we face up to the challenge or we settle for sub-optimal use of our limited spectrum access -- and if we do the latter, eventually it will translate into reduced spectrum access. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv Sent: Wed 4/20/2005 11:54 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [arrl-odv:12117] The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal It seems the EC Proposal presumes a workable and enforceable, band by band, HF Band Plan can be devised that will receive general acceptance for the 3 KHz and wider allocations. Admittedly modifying Band Plans does not involve the delay and inertia that accompanies the effort needed to secure a change in frequency allocations or usage by FCC. I can’t help but think that garnering the necessary consensus to establish such Band Plans will not only be challenging but is likely to generate significant negative reaction among Amateurs toward ARRL. In spite of the best of intentions, Band Plans like Frequency Coordination inevitably have a “Tar Baby” component. I can already here the phrase “There they go again” welling up in the distance. What plan(s) do we or the EC have to avoid such reactions? The last thing we need at this juncture is to unnecessarily alienate members. If others feel there are good reasons to think this concern is unfounded let’s talk about this now. I think we should begin this discussion now rather than in the weeks just prior to the July Board Meeting. When the allocation by bandwidth proposal was submitted I thought it an excellent opportunity to encourage experimentation particularly in digital communications. The way is has evolved seems to have changed from a way to open a door to experimentation and innovation to kicking down the walls because of the promise of digital modes. 73, Jay, KØQB -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.18 - Release Date: 4/19/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 4/20/2005 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 4/20/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.1 - Release Date: 4/20/2005