I have received a couple of "one-liner" comments to the effect of "Vote NO on WinLink Proposal!" To try to get this discussion back where it belongs, my response to these e-mails is equally terse that there is no such proposal before the Board! I have received no follow-on comments. FWIW. 73, Wade W0EJ John Bellows wrote:

In Dave’s recent “It Seems To Us” he suggested there are three guiding principles behind the Bandwidth Proposal:

1) If Amateur Radio is too thrive and hold its own against competing Commercial attempts to grab or frequencies we need FCC rules changes that can stand the test of time for at least 5 to 10 years.

2) Amateur HF operating patterns and technology are shifting. As they evolve the FCC Rules need to accommodate both that change and current uses.

3) The FCC rules and system for modifying the Rules are to slow and inflexible to meet necessary changes.

Up to now the focus hasn’t been on the reasons why the Proposal is needed. The discussion has been Hijacked by the Pro and Anti Winlink zealots and the Pro and Anti automatic and semi-automatic zealots. So long as we continue to let them frame the message and dictate the discussion we can forget about any meaningful consideration of reasons for the Bandwidth Proposal.

The purpose of the proposal was to strengthen and protect the Amateur Radio Service. The purpose of the proposal was to provide a means to evolve cooperatively to meet and adjust to changes. The purpose was to………..

Either we figure out what our purpose is and how to frame the message and discussion and take back the discussion or we are consigning ourselves to a Summer ofmoderating a “Winlink Rules”, “Winlink is the Devil” shouting match with no resolution in sight.. (If you prefer you can insert “automatic/semi-automatic operation” for Winlink in the prior sentence.)

Let’s get the discussion back on the reasons behind the Proposal. Let’s move the spotlight to the reasons for the Proposal and make it clear the Winlink and automatic/semi-automatic discussion are on the periphery not the center of the discussions. If we can’t do that, let’s move on to something we can do.

73,

Jay,KØQB