[arrl-odv:25267] Re: Bandplan proposal
Since all of the discussion about Dave's email below,(and the EC memo from Chris) has focused on NTS, let me offer a different view. <soapbox on> NTS is not the right formula to change the FCC's mind on this. They're the past. Neither NTS leaders nor the ARRL Board in its wisdom has been able to find a way to bring them into the current century. We haven't been able to get the to work with EmComm. We haven't been able to identify a future involving both ARES and NTS. I'm not optimistic. On the other hand, we have exploding growth with digital modes and digital activity. That's our future, that's where we should be able to find support for additional room to accommodate the growth in activity and interest. Are we all so old that we only know or hear from the NTS community and not the digital community? Who are the digital leaders in your Division? Talk to them. (Me, too) <soapbox off> -- Tom At 04:56 PM 3/18/2016, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
Jim, since no one else has commented let me offer one. It would be best to concentrate on quietly getting rank-and-file members and other supportive amateurs to file, consistent with Chris Imlays memo to the EC earlier this week (reproduced below).
From: exec-com [mailto:exec-com-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Imlay, Chris, W3KD Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 12:45 PM To: exec-com Subject: [exec-com:8116] Filing comments on ARRL's 80-meter refarming petition, RM-11759.
On January 8, 2016 we filed ARRL's Petition for Rule Making to effect changes in the 80 and 75-meter RTTY/data and phone/image subbands; to restore 80-meter frequency privileges for certain license classes; to shift the 80-meter automatically controlled digital station band segment; and to authorize Novice and Technician class licensees to utilize RTTY/data emissions in certain bands. The Petition was called for by Minute 32 of the July, 2015 Board Meeting.
FCC placed our Petition on Public Notice on February 22, 2016. Comments on the Petition are due March 23, 2016. Reply comments are due April 7, 2016. There are as of now 180 comments filed in this proceeding. A few CW operators and others support the proposal, most without stating firm reasons for their support. However, a majority of the comments filed so far are one-liners from Extra Class licensees who object to having their exclusive phone segment reduced. These are one-sentence, unjustified comments in large part but there is enough volume here that we should be concerned. ARRL will file comments with a restatement of the justification for the petition, and for the proposed reduction in the exclusive Amateur Extra class subband at 75 meters.
The executive committee over last weekend decided to quietly urge individual extra class hams to file comments in favor of the Petition.
The following is some guidance in doing so. It is easy to file comments in the FCC's ECFS filing system. Go to the following URL:
<http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list>http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list
Then click on the proceeding "RM-11759"
then type in e-mail and address contact information and type in or paste in your text comments and then click "continue" and then follow the directions for completing the filing. Very easy, very user-friendly.
ARRL's Petition includes the following points, per the Boards instruction:
(A) To modify the 80-meter RTTY/Data subband defined in Rule Sections 97.301 and 97.305 so that it extends from 3500 kHz to 3650 kHz;
(B) To modify the 75-meter Phone/Image subband defined in Rule Sections 97.301 and 97.305 so that it extends from 3650 kHz to 4000 kHz;
(C) To provide that the 3600-3650 kHz segment of the 80-meter band will be made available for General and Advanced Class licensees, as was the case prior to 2006;
(D) To provide that the band segment 3600-3650 kHz will also be available to Novice and Technician Class licensees for telegraphy (consistent with the existing rules that now permit Novice and Technician Class licensees to use telegraphy in the General and Advanced Class RTTY/data subbands at 80, 40, and 15 Meters);
(E) To modify Section 97.221(b) of the Commissions Rules governing automatically controlled digital stations, so that the segment of the 80-meter band that is available for automatically controlled digital operation shifts from 3585- 3600 kHz (as per the existing rules) to 3600-3615 kHz (consistent with the IARU Region 1 and Region 2 band plans); and
(F) To provide RTTY/data privileges to Novice and Technician licensees in their 15-meter band segment and their 80-meter band segment, the latter contingent on the rule changes at (A) and (B) hereinabove.
In the petition, with respect to the effect of the rebanding on Extra Class 75-meter phone operators, we stated as follows:
While ARRL received overwhelming support for the proposed 50 kilohertz expansion of the 80-meter band, concern was expressed by a few Extra Class licensees about the proposal, inasmuch as those licensees enjoy the inordinately large, exclusive 3600-3700 kHz segment for phone/image operation. Extra Class licensees, however, should be reminded that the 3700-3800 kHz segment of the 75-meter band is and would continue under ARRL's proposal to be available only to Extra and Advanced Class licensees. Only 7 percent of the Commission's licensees hold Advanced Class licenses, and that number will continue to decline toward zero as this license class is no longer being issued. Even if the phone/image subband at 75 meters is reduced in size from 400 kilohertz to 350 kilohertz as herein proposed, it will still be the largest phone/image subband among all of the HF Amateur allocations.
While this seems a reasonable justification for the proposed rearrangement of the 75/80 meter band, a vocal minority of Extra Class licensees that the ARRL HF Band Plan Committee heard from when the surveys were conducted are repeating their concerns to the FCC now.
Feel free to resend this to your Board colleagues not on the EC who might be interesting in urging some favorable comments on RM-11759. But we should be surreptitious about this effort lest we energize the opponents of our Petition.
73, Chris W3KD
-- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile <mailto:W3KD@ARRL.ORG>W3KD@ARRL.ORG
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:36 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:25244] Bandplan proposal
I was informed about the need to have comments submitted for the ARRL Bandplan proposal now under consideration by the FCC, as discussed during the Exec Committee.
I see that the Directors workbook, section 2.2 prohibits those on the board from filing comments with the FCC. Since Vice Directors are technically not on the board, are they free to file comments?
Should we be targeting groups which would agree with our proposal and encourage them to file? Perhaps CW/NTS operators or digital ops who would benefit from the proposal (Especially on 80 m)?
73 de JIM N2ZZ Director Roanoke Division
===== 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
With all due respect: 1) There's a heck of a lot of digital activity in NTS, at least out here. It's not "either - or". 2) We're looking to generate large numbers of favorable comments; we're not using NTS for any specific rationale. You will reach a goodly number of NTS operators - both CW and digital - through NTS. 73, Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Tom Frenaye Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:07 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:25267] Re: Bandplan proposal Since all of the discussion about Dave's email below,(and the EC memo from Chris) has focused on NTS, let me offer a different view. <soapbox on> NTS is not the right formula to change the FCC's mind on this. They're the past. Neither NTS leaders nor the ARRL Board in its wisdom has been able to find a way to bring them into the current century. We haven't been able to get the to work with EmComm. We haven't been able to identify a future involving both ARES and NTS. I'm not optimistic. On the other hand, we have exploding growth with digital modes and digital activity. That's our future, that's where we should be able to find support for additional room to accommodate the growth in activity and interest. Are we all so old that we only know or hear from the NTS community and not the digital community? Who are the digital leaders in your Division? Talk to them. (Me, too) <soapbox off> -- Tom At 04:56 PM 3/18/2016, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: Jim, since no one else has commented let me offer one. It would be best to concentrate on quietly getting rank-and-file members and other supportive amateurs to file, consistent with Chris Imlay's memo to the EC earlier this week (reproduced below). From: exec-com [ mailto:exec-com-bounces@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:exec-com-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> ] On Behalf Of Imlay, Chris, W3KD Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 12:45 PM To: exec-com Subject: [exec-com:8116] Filing comments on ARRL's 80-meter refarming petition, RM-11759. On January 8, 2016 we filed ARRL's Petition for Rule Making to effect changes in the 80 and 75-meter RTTY/data and phone/image subbands; to restore 80-meter frequency privileges for certain license classes; to shift the 80-meter automatically controlled digital station band segment; and to authorize Novice and Technician class licensees to utilize RTTY/data emissions in certain bands. The Petition was called for by Minute 32 of the July, 2015 Board Meeting. FCC placed our Petition on Public Notice on February 22, 2016. Comments on the Petition are due March 23, 2016. Reply comments are due April 7, 2016. There are as of now 180 comments filed in this proceeding. A few CW operators and others support the proposal, most without stating firm reasons for their support. However, a majority of the comments filed so far are one-liners from Extra Class licensees who object to having their exclusive phone segment reduced. These are one-sentence, unjustified comments in large part but there is enough volume here that we should be concerned. ARRL will file comments with a restatement of the justification for the petition, and for the proposed reduction in the exclusive Amateur Extra class subband at 75 meters. The executive committee over last weekend decided to quietly urge individual extra class hams to file comments in favor of the Petition. The following is some guidance in doing so. It is easy to file comments in the FCC's ECFS filing system. Go to the following URL: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list Then click on the proceeding "RM-11759" then type in e-mail and address contact information and type in or paste in your text comments and then click "continue" and then follow the directions for completing the filing. Very easy, very user-friendly. ARRL's Petition includes the following points, per the Board's instruction: (A) To modify the 80-meter RTTY/Data subband defined in Rule Sections 97.301 and 97.305 so that it extends from 3500 kHz to 3650 kHz; (B) To modify the 75-meter Phone/Image subband defined in Rule Sections 97.301 and 97.305 so that it extends from 3650 kHz to 4000 kHz; (C) To provide that the 3600-3650 kHz segment of the 80-meter band will be made available for General and Advanced Class licensees, as was the case prior to 2006; (D) To provide that the band segment 3600-3650 kHz will also be available to Novice and Technician Class licensees for telegraphy (consistent with the existing rules that now permit Novice and Technician Class licensees to use telegraphy in the General and Advanced Class RTTY/data subbands at 80, 40, and 15 Meters); (E) To modify Section 97.221(b) of the Commission's Rules governing automatically controlled digital stations, so that the segment of the 80-meter band that is available for automatically controlled digital operation shifts from 3585- 3600 kHz (as per the existing rules) to 3600-3615 kHz (consistent with the IARU Region 1 and Region 2 band plans); and (F) To provide RTTY/data privileges to Novice and Technician licensees in their 15-meter band segment and their 80-meter band segment, the latter contingent on the rule changes at (A) and (B) hereinabove. In the petition, with respect to the effect of the "rebanding" on Extra Class 75-meter phone operators, we stated as follows: While ARRL received overwhelming support for the proposed 50 kilohertz expansion of the 80-meter band, concern was expressed by a few Extra Class licensees about the proposal, inasmuch as those licensees enjoy the inordinately large, exclusive 3600-3700 kHz segment for phone/image operation. Extra Class licensees, however, should be reminded that the 3700-3800 kHz segment of the 75-meter band is and would continue under ARRL's proposal to be available only to Extra and Advanced Class licensees. Only 7 percent of the Commission's licensees hold Advanced Class licenses, and that number will continue to decline toward zero as this license class is no longer being issued. Even if the phone/image subband at 75 meters is reduced in size from 400 kilohertz to 350 kilohertz as herein proposed, it will still be the largest phone/image subband among all of the HF Amateur allocations. While this seems a reasonable justification for the proposed rearrangement of the 75/80 meter band, a vocal minority of Extra Class licensees that the ARRL HF Band Plan Committee heard from when the surveys were conducted are repeating their concerns to the FCC now. Feel free to resend this to your Board colleagues not on the EC who might be interesting in urging some favorable comments on RM-11759. But we should be surreptitious about this effort lest we energize the opponents of our Petition. 73, Chris W3KD -- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG From: arrl-odv [ mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> ] On Behalf Of arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:36 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:25244] Bandplan proposal I was informed about the need to have comments submitted for the ARRL Bandplan proposal now under consideration by the FCC, as discussed during the Exec Committee. I see that the Director's workbook, section 2.2 prohibits those on the board from filing comments with the FCC. Since Vice Directors are technically not on the board, are they free to file comments? Should we be targeting groups which would agree with our proposal and encourage them to file? Perhaps CW/NTS operators or digital ops who would benefit from the proposal (Especially on 80 m)? '73 de JIM N2ZZ Director - Roanoke Division ===== 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
Indeed, Marty is correct. We have a lot of NTSD here in WWA as well. I have asked them to comment. The digital side of NTS is actually quite active. 73, Jim From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Marty Woll Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:16 PM To: 'Tom Frenaye' <frenaye@pcnet.com>; 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:25268] Re: Bandplan proposal With all due respect: 1) There's a heck of a lot of digital activity in NTS, at least out here. It's not "either - or". 2) We're looking to generate large numbers of favorable comments; we're not using NTS for any specific rationale. You will reach a goodly number of NTS operators - both CW and digital - through NTS. 73, Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Tom Frenaye Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:07 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:25267] Re: Bandplan proposal Since all of the discussion about Dave's email below,(and the EC memo from Chris) has focused on NTS, let me offer a different view. <soapbox on> NTS is not the right formula to change the FCC's mind on this. They're the past. Neither NTS leaders nor the ARRL Board in its wisdom has been able to find a way to bring them into the current century. We haven't been able to get the to work with EmComm. We haven't been able to identify a future involving both ARES and NTS. I'm not optimistic. On the other hand, we have exploding growth with digital modes and digital activity. That's our future, that's where we should be able to find support for additional room to accommodate the growth in activity and interest. Are we all so old that we only know or hear from the NTS community and not the digital community? Who are the digital leaders in your Division? Talk to them. (Me, too) <soapbox off> -- Tom At 04:56 PM 3/18/2016, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: Jim, since no one else has commented let me offer one. It would be best to concentrate on quietly getting rank-and-file members and other supportive amateurs to file, consistent with Chris Imlay's memo to the EC earlier this week (reproduced below). From: exec-com [ mailto:exec-com-bounces@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:exec-com-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> ] On Behalf Of Imlay, Chris, W3KD Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 12:45 PM To: exec-com Subject: [exec-com:8116] Filing comments on ARRL's 80-meter refarming petition, RM-11759. On January 8, 2016 we filed ARRL's Petition for Rule Making to effect changes in the 80 and 75-meter RTTY/data and phone/image subbands; to restore 80-meter frequency privileges for certain license classes; to shift the 80-meter automatically controlled digital station band segment; and to authorize Novice and Technician class licensees to utilize RTTY/data emissions in certain bands. The Petition was called for by Minute 32 of the July, 2015 Board Meeting. FCC placed our Petition on Public Notice on February 22, 2016. Comments on the Petition are due March 23, 2016. Reply comments are due April 7, 2016. There are as of now 180 comments filed in this proceeding. A few CW operators and others support the proposal, most without stating firm reasons for their support. However, a majority of the comments filed so far are one-liners from Extra Class licensees who object to having their exclusive phone segment reduced. These are one-sentence, unjustified comments in large part but there is enough volume here that we should be concerned. ARRL will file comments with a restatement of the justification for the petition, and for the proposed reduction in the exclusive Amateur Extra class subband at 75 meters. The executive committee over last weekend decided to quietly urge individual extra class hams to file comments in favor of the Petition. The following is some guidance in doing so. It is easy to file comments in the FCC's ECFS filing system. Go to the following URL: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list Then click on the proceeding "RM-11759" then type in e-mail and address contact information and type in or paste in your text comments and then click "continue" and then follow the directions for completing the filing. Very easy, very user-friendly. ARRL's Petition includes the following points, per the Board's instruction: (A) To modify the 80-meter RTTY/Data subband defined in Rule Sections 97.301 and 97.305 so that it extends from 3500 kHz to 3650 kHz; (B) To modify the 75-meter Phone/Image subband defined in Rule Sections 97.301 and 97.305 so that it extends from 3650 kHz to 4000 kHz; (C) To provide that the 3600-3650 kHz segment of the 80-meter band will be made available for General and Advanced Class licensees, as was the case prior to 2006; (D) To provide that the band segment 3600-3650 kHz will also be available to Novice and Technician Class licensees for telegraphy (consistent with the existing rules that now permit Novice and Technician Class licensees to use telegraphy in the General and Advanced Class RTTY/data subbands at 80, 40, and 15 Meters); (E) To modify Section 97.221(b) of the Commission's Rules governing automatically controlled digital stations, so that the segment of the 80-meter band that is available for automatically controlled digital operation shifts from 3585- 3600 kHz (as per the existing rules) to 3600-3615 kHz (consistent with the IARU Region 1 and Region 2 band plans); and (F) To provide RTTY/data privileges to Novice and Technician licensees in their 15-meter band segment and their 80-meter band segment, the latter contingent on the rule changes at (A) and (B) hereinabove. In the petition, with respect to the effect of the "rebanding" on Extra Class 75-meter phone operators, we stated as follows: While ARRL received overwhelming support for the proposed 50 kilohertz expansion of the 80-meter band, concern was expressed by a few Extra Class licensees about the proposal, inasmuch as those licensees enjoy the inordinately large, exclusive 3600-3700 kHz segment for phone/image operation. Extra Class licensees, however, should be reminded that the 3700-3800 kHz segment of the 75-meter band is and would continue under ARRL's proposal to be available only to Extra and Advanced Class licensees. Only 7 percent of the Commission's licensees hold Advanced Class licenses, and that number will continue to decline toward zero as this license class is no longer being issued. Even if the phone/image subband at 75 meters is reduced in size from 400 kilohertz to 350 kilohertz as herein proposed, it will still be the largest phone/image subband among all of the HF Amateur allocations. While this seems a reasonable justification for the proposed rearrangement of the 75/80 meter band, a vocal minority of Extra Class licensees that the ARRL HF Band Plan Committee heard from when the surveys were conducted are repeating their concerns to the FCC now. Feel free to resend this to your Board colleagues not on the EC who might be interesting in urging some favorable comments on RM-11759. But we should be surreptitious about this effort lest we energize the opponents of our Petition. 73, Chris W3KD -- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG <mailto:W3KD@ARRL.ORG> From: arrl-odv [ mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> ] On Behalf Of arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:36 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:25244] Bandplan proposal I was informed about the need to have comments submitted for the ARRL Bandplan proposal now under consideration by the FCC, as discussed during the Exec Committee. I see that the Director's workbook, section 2.2 prohibits those on the board from filing comments with the FCC. Since Vice Directors are technically not on the board, are they free to file comments? Should we be targeting groups which would agree with our proposal and encourage them to file? Perhaps CW/NTS operators or digital ops who would benefit from the proposal (Especially on 80 m)? '73 de JIM N2ZZ Director - Roanoke Division ===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org <mailto: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
I would observe the same. NTS still has many CW operators I find and they are also keen on digital systems as well. I am not that familiar with what happened in the past or what facts Tom relies upon to reach his conclusions related to NTS. I am sure he must have his reasons. By way of example, and as Jim knows, NTS will be handling all the long haul traffic from West coast to East coast for the Cascadia Rising FEMA disaster drill in June at FEMA's specific requests. That is going to be a multi-mode event including NTSD activity. They will be interfacing with whatever ARES groups are involved locally in the region for that exercise. Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director, ARRL Atlantic Division 610-359-7300 www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Northwestern Division Director - Jim K7CEX Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 11:40 PM To: 'Marty Woll'; 'Tom Frenaye'; 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:25269] Re: Bandplan proposal Indeed, Marty is correct. We have a lot of NTSD here in WWA as well. I have asked them to comment. The digital side of NTS is actually quite active. 73, Jim From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Marty Woll Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:16 PM To: 'Tom Frenaye' <frenaye@pcnet.com>; 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:25268] Re: Bandplan proposal With all due respect: 1) There's a heck of a lot of digital activity in NTS, at least out here. It's not "either - or". 2) We're looking to generate large numbers of favorable comments; we're not using NTS for any specific rationale. You will reach a goodly number of NTS operators - both CW and digital - through NTS. 73, Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Tom Frenaye Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:07 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:25267] Re: Bandplan proposal Since all of the discussion about Dave's email below,(and the EC memo from Chris) has focused on NTS, let me offer a different view. <soapbox on> NTS is not the right formula to change the FCC's mind on this. They're the past. Neither NTS leaders nor the ARRL Board in its wisdom has been able to find a way to bring them into the current century. We haven't been able to get the to work with EmComm. We haven't been able to identify a future involving both ARES and NTS. I'm not optimistic. On the other hand, we have exploding growth with digital modes and digital activity. That's our future, that's where we should be able to find support for additional room to accommodate the growth in activity and interest. Are we all so old that we only know or hear from the NTS community and not the digital community? Who are the digital leaders in your Division? Talk to them. (Me, too) <soapbox off> -- Tom At 04:56 PM 3/18/2016, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: Jim, since no one else has commented let me offer one. It would be best to concentrate on quietly getting rank-and-file members and other supportive amateurs to file, consistent with Chris Imlay's memo to the EC earlier this week (reproduced below). From: exec-com [ mailto:exec-com-bounces@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:exec-com-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> ] On Behalf Of Imlay, Chris, W3KD Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 12:45 PM To: exec-com Subject: [exec-com:8116] Filing comments on ARRL's 80-meter refarming petition, RM-11759. On January 8, 2016 we filed ARRL's Petition for Rule Making to effect changes in the 80 and 75-meter RTTY/data and phone/image subbands; to restore 80-meter frequency privileges for certain license classes; to shift the 80-meter automatically controlled digital station band segment; and to authorize Novice and Technician class licensees to utilize RTTY/data emissions in certain bands. The Petition was called for by Minute 32 of the July, 2015 Board Meeting. FCC placed our Petition on Public Notice on February 22, 2016. Comments on the Petition are due March 23, 2016. Reply comments are due April 7, 2016. There are as of now 180 comments filed in this proceeding. A few CW operators and others support the proposal, most without stating firm reasons for their support. However, a majority of the comments filed so far are one-liners from Extra Class licensees who object to having their exclusive phone segment reduced. These are one-sentence, unjustified comments in large part but there is enough volume here that we should be concerned. ARRL will file comments with a restatement of the justification for the petition, and for the proposed reduction in the exclusive Amateur Extra class subband at 75 meters. The executive committee over last weekend decided to quietly urge individual extra class hams to file comments in favor of the Petition. The following is some guidance in doing so. It is easy to file comments in the FCC's ECFS filing system. Go to the following URL: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list Then click on the proceeding "RM-11759" then type in e-mail and address contact information and type in or paste in your text comments and then click "continue" and then follow the directions for completing the filing. Very easy, very user-friendly. ARRL's Petition includes the following points, per the Board's instruction: (A) To modify the 80-meter RTTY/Data subband defined in Rule Sections 97.301 and 97.305 so that it extends from 3500 kHz to 3650 kHz; (B) To modify the 75-meter Phone/Image subband defined in Rule Sections 97.301 and 97.305 so that it extends from 3650 kHz to 4000 kHz; (C) To provide that the 3600-3650 kHz segment of the 80-meter band will be made available for General and Advanced Class licensees, as was the case prior to 2006; (D) To provide that the band segment 3600-3650 kHz will also be available to Novice and Technician Class licensees for telegraphy (consistent with the existing rules that now permit Novice and Technician Class licensees to use telegraphy in the General and Advanced Class RTTY/data subbands at 80, 40, and 15 Meters); (E) To modify Section 97.221(b) of the Commission's Rules governing automatically controlled digital stations, so that the segment of the 80-meter band that is available for automatically controlled digital operation shifts from 3585- 3600 kHz (as per the existing rules) to 3600-3615 kHz (consistent with the IARU Region 1 and Region 2 band plans); and (F) To provide RTTY/data privileges to Novice and Technician licensees in their 15-meter band segment and their 80-meter band segment, the latter contingent on the rule changes at (A) and (B) hereinabove. In the petition, with respect to the effect of the "rebanding" on Extra Class 75-meter phone operators, we stated as follows: While ARRL received overwhelming support for the proposed 50 kilohertz expansion of the 80-meter band, concern was expressed by a few Extra Class licensees about the proposal, inasmuch as those licensees enjoy the inordinately large, exclusive 3600-3700 kHz segment for phone/image operation. Extra Class licensees, however, should be reminded that the 3700-3800 kHz segment of the 75-meter band is and would continue under ARRL's proposal to be available only to Extra and Advanced Class licensees. Only 7 percent of the Commission's licensees hold Advanced Class licenses, and that number will continue to decline toward zero as this license class is no longer being issued. Even if the phone/image subband at 75 meters is reduced in size from 400 kilohertz to 350 kilohertz as herein proposed, it will still be the largest phone/image subband among all of the HF Amateur allocations. While this seems a reasonable justification for the proposed rearrangement of the 75/80 meter band, a vocal minority of Extra Class licensees that the ARRL HF Band Plan Committee heard from when the surveys were conducted are repeating their concerns to the FCC now. Feel free to resend this to your Board colleagues not on the EC who might be interesting in urging some favorable comments on RM-11759. But we should be surreptitious about this effort lest we energize the opponents of our Petition. 73, Chris W3KD -- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG From: arrl-odv [ mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> ] On Behalf Of arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:36 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:25244] Bandplan proposal I was informed about the need to have comments submitted for the ARRL Bandplan proposal now under consideration by the FCC, as discussed during the Exec Committee. I see that the Director's workbook, section 2.2 prohibits those on the board from filing comments with the FCC. Since Vice Directors are technically not on the board, are they free to file comments? Should we be targeting groups which would agree with our proposal and encourage them to file? Perhaps CW/NTS operators or digital ops who would benefit from the proposal (Especially on 80 m)? '73 de JIM N2ZZ Director - Roanoke Division ===== 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
All, Agreed. I do think it is in everyone's interest to get the NTS and NTSD folks involved in this as they will benefit from it. Also, I am getting the WinLink ops mobilized on our side. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Bob Famiglio, K3RF <RBFamiglio@Verizon.net> wrote:
I would observe the same. NTS still has many CW operators I find and they are also keen on digital systems as well. I am not that familiar with what happened in the past or what facts Tom relies upon to reach his conclusions related to NTS. I am sure he must have his reasons. By way of example, and as Jim knows, NTS will be handling all the long haul traffic from West coast to East coast for the Cascadia Rising FEMA disaster drill in June at FEMA’s specific requests. That is going to be a multi-mode event including NTSD activity. They will be interfacing with whatever ARES groups are involved locally in the region for that exercise.
Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director, ARRL Atlantic Division 610-359-7300
www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Northwestern Division Director - Jim K7CEX Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 11:40 PM To: 'Marty Woll'; 'Tom Frenaye'; 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:25269] Re: Bandplan proposal
Indeed, Marty is correct. We have a lot of NTSD here in WWA as well. I have asked them to comment. The digital side of NTS is actually quite active. 73, Jim
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Marty Woll Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:16 PM To: 'Tom Frenaye' <frenaye@pcnet.com>; 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:25268] Re: Bandplan proposal
With all due respect:
1) There’s a heck of a lot of digital activity in NTS, at least out here. It’s not “either – or”.
2) We’re looking to generate large numbers of favorable comments; we’re not using NTS for any specific rationale.
You will reach a goodly number of NTS operators – both CW and digital – through NTS.
73,
Marty N6VI
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Tom Frenaye Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:07 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:25267] Re: Bandplan proposal
Since all of the discussion about Dave's email below,(and the EC memo from Chris) has focused on NTS, let me offer a different view.
<soapbox on>
NTS is not the right formula to change the FCC's mind on this. They're the past. Neither NTS leaders nor the ARRL Board in its wisdom has been able to find a way to bring them into the current century. We haven't been able to get the to work with EmComm. We haven't been able to identify a future involving both ARES and NTS. I'm not optimistic.
On the other hand, we have exploding growth with digital modes and digital activity. That's our future, that's where we should be able to find support for additional room to accommodate the growth in activity and interest. Are we all so old that we only know or hear from the NTS community and not the digital community? Who are the digital leaders in your Division? Talk to them. (Me, too)
<soapbox off>
-- Tom
At 04:56 PM 3/18/2016, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
Jim, since no one else has commented let me offer one. It would be best to concentrate on quietly getting rank-and-file members and other supportive amateurs to file, consistent with Chris Imlay’s memo to the EC earlier this week (reproduced below).
From: exec-com [ mailto:exec-com-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Imlay, Chris, W3KD Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 12:45 PM To: exec-com Subject: [exec-com:8116] Filing comments on ARRL's 80-meter refarming petition, RM-11759.
On January 8, 2016 we filed ARRL's Petition for Rule Making to effect changes in the 80 and 75-meter RTTY/data and phone/image subbands; to restore 80-meter frequency privileges for certain license classes; to shift the 80-meter automatically controlled digital station band segment; and to authorize Novice and Technician class licensees to utilize RTTY/data emissions in certain bands. The Petition was called for by Minute 32 of the July, 2015 Board Meeting.
FCC placed our Petition on Public Notice on February 22, 2016. Comments on the Petition are due March 23, 2016. Reply comments are due April 7, 2016. There are as of now 180 comments filed in this proceeding. A few CW operators and others support the proposal, most without stating firm reasons for their support. However, a majority of the comments filed so far are one-liners from Extra Class licensees who object to having their exclusive phone segment reduced. These are one-sentence, unjustified comments in large part but there is enough volume here that we should be concerned. ARRL will file comments with a restatement of the justification for the petition, and for the proposed reduction in the exclusive Amateur Extra class subband at 75 meters.
The executive committee over last weekend decided to quietly urge individual extra class hams to file comments in favor of the Petition.
The following is some guidance in doing so. It is easy to file comments in the FCC's ECFS filing system. Go to the following URL:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list
Then click on the proceeding "RM-11759"
then type in e-mail and address contact information and type in or paste in your text comments and then click "continue" and then follow the directions for completing the filing. Very easy, very user-friendly.
ARRL's Petition includes the following points, per the Board’s instruction:
(A) To modify the 80-meter RTTY/Data subband defined in Rule Sections 97.301 and 97.305 so that it extends from 3500 kHz to 3650 kHz;
(B) To modify the 75-meter Phone/Image subband defined in Rule Sections 97.301 and 97.305 so that it extends from 3650 kHz to 4000 kHz;
(C) To provide that the 3600-3650 kHz segment of the 80-meter band will be made available for General and Advanced Class licensees, as was the case prior to 2006;
(D) To provide that the band segment 3600-3650 kHz will also be available to Novice and Technician Class licensees for telegraphy (consistent with the existing rules that now permit Novice and Technician Class licensees to use telegraphy in the General and Advanced Class RTTY/data subbands at 80, 40, and 15 Meters);
(E) To modify Section 97.221(b) of the Commission’s Rules governing automatically controlled digital stations, so that the segment of the 80-meter band that is available for automatically controlled digital operation shifts from 3585- 3600 kHz (as per the existing rules) to 3600-3615 kHz (consistent with the IARU Region 1 and Region 2 band plans); and
(F) To provide RTTY/data privileges to Novice and Technician licensees in their 15-meter band segment and their 80-meter band segment, the latter contingent on the rule changes at (A) and (B) hereinabove.
In the petition, with respect to the effect of the “rebanding” on Extra Class 75-meter phone operators, we stated as follows:
While ARRL received overwhelming support for the proposed 50 kilohertz expansion of the 80-meter band, concern was expressed by a few Extra Class licensees about the proposal, inasmuch as those licensees enjoy the inordinately large, exclusive 3600-3700 kHz segment for phone/image operation. Extra Class licensees, however, should be reminded that the 3700-3800 kHz segment of the 75-meter band is and would continue under ARRL's proposal to be available only to Extra and Advanced Class licensees. Only 7 percent of the Commission's licensees hold Advanced Class licenses, and that number will continue to decline toward zero as this license class is no longer being issued. Even if the phone/image subband at 75 meters is reduced in size from 400 kilohertz to 350 kilohertz as herein proposed, it will still be the largest phone/image subband among all of the HF Amateur allocations.
While this seems a reasonable justification for the proposed rearrangement of the 75/80 meter band, a vocal minority of Extra Class licensees that the ARRL HF Band Plan Committee heard from when the surveys were conducted are repeating their concerns to the FCC now.
Feel free to resend this to your Board colleagues not on the EC who might be interesting in urging some favorable comments on RM-11759. But we should be surreptitious about this effort lest we energize the opponents of our Petition.
73, Chris W3KD
-- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG
From: arrl-odv [ mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:36 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:25244] Bandplan proposal
I was informed about the need to have comments submitted for the ARRL Bandplan proposal now under consideration by the FCC, as discussed during the Exec Committee.
I see that the Director’s workbook, section 2.2 prohibits those on the board from filing comments with the FCC. Since Vice Directors are technically not on the board, are they free to file comments?
Should we be targeting groups which would agree with our proposal and encourage them to file? Perhaps CW/NTS operators or digital ops who would benefit from the proposal (Especially on 80 m)?
’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division ===== 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
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Bob Famiglio, K3RF <RBFamiglio@Verizon.net> wrote:
I would observe the same. NTS still has many CW operators I find and they are also keen on digital systems as well. I am not that familiar with what happened in the past or what facts Tom relies upon to reach his conclusions related to NTS. I am sure he must have his reasons. By way of example, and as Jim knows, NTS will be handling all the long haul traffic from West coast to East coast for the Cascadia Rising FEMA disaster drill in June at FEMA’s specific requests. That is going to be a multi-mode event including NTSD activity. They will be interfacing with whatever ARES groups are involved locally in the region for that exercise.
Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director, ARRL Atlantic Division 610-359-7300
www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Northwestern Division Director - Jim K7CEX Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 11:40 PM To: 'Marty Woll'; 'Tom Frenaye'; 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:25269] Re: Bandplan proposal
Indeed, Marty is correct. We have a lot of NTSD here in WWA as well. I have asked them to comment. The digital side of NTS is actually quite active. 73, Jim
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Marty Woll Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:16 PM To: 'Tom Frenaye' <frenaye@pcnet.com>; 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:25268] Re: Bandplan proposal
With all due respect:
1) There’s a heck of a lot of digital activity in NTS, at least out here. It’s not “either – or”.
2) We’re looking to generate large numbers of favorable comments; we’re not using NTS for any specific rationale.
You will reach a goodly number of NTS operators – both CW and digital – through NTS.
73,
Marty N6VI
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Tom Frenaye Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:07 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:25267] Re: Bandplan proposal
Since all of the discussion about Dave's email below,(and the EC memo from Chris) has focused on NTS, let me offer a different view.
<soapbox on>
NTS is not the right formula to change the FCC's mind on this. They're the past. Neither NTS leaders nor the ARRL Board in its wisdom has been able to find a way to bring them into the current century. We haven't been able to get the to work with EmComm. We haven't been able to identify a future involving both ARES and NTS. I'm not optimistic.
On the other hand, we have exploding growth with digital modes and digital activity. That's our future, that's where we should be able to find support for additional room to accommodate the growth in activity and interest. Are we all so old that we only know or hear from the NTS community and not the digital community? Who are the digital leaders in your Division? Talk to them. (Me, too)
<soapbox off>
-- Tom
At 04:56 PM 3/18/2016, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:
Jim, since no one else has commented let me offer one. It would be best to concentrate on quietly getting rank-and-file members and other supportive amateurs to file, consistent with Chris Imlay’s memo to the EC earlier this week (reproduced below).
From: exec-com [ mailto:exec-com-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Imlay, Chris, W3KD Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 12:45 PM To: exec-com Subject: [exec-com:8116] Filing comments on ARRL's 80-meter refarming petition, RM-11759.
On January 8, 2016 we filed ARRL's Petition for Rule Making to effect changes in the 80 and 75-meter RTTY/data and phone/image subbands; to restore 80-meter frequency privileges for certain license classes; to shift the 80-meter automatically controlled digital station band segment; and to authorize Novice and Technician class licensees to utilize RTTY/data emissions in certain bands. The Petition was called for by Minute 32 of the July, 2015 Board Meeting.
FCC placed our Petition on Public Notice on February 22, 2016. Comments on the Petition are due March 23, 2016. Reply comments are due April 7, 2016. There are as of now 180 comments filed in this proceeding. A few CW operators and others support the proposal, most without stating firm reasons for their support. However, a majority of the comments filed so far are one-liners from Extra Class licensees who object to having their exclusive phone segment reduced. These are one-sentence, unjustified comments in large part but there is enough volume here that we should be concerned. ARRL will file comments with a restatement of the justification for the petition, and for the proposed reduction in the exclusive Amateur Extra class subband at 75 meters.
The executive committee over last weekend decided to quietly urge individual extra class hams to file comments in favor of the Petition.
The following is some guidance in doing so. It is easy to file comments in the FCC's ECFS filing system. Go to the following URL:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/hotdocket/list
Then click on the proceeding "RM-11759"
then type in e-mail and address contact information and type in or paste in your text comments and then click "continue" and then follow the directions for completing the filing. Very easy, very user-friendly.
ARRL's Petition includes the following points, per the Board’s instruction:
(A) To modify the 80-meter RTTY/Data subband defined in Rule Sections 97.301 and 97.305 so that it extends from 3500 kHz to 3650 kHz;
(B) To modify the 75-meter Phone/Image subband defined in Rule Sections 97.301 and 97.305 so that it extends from 3650 kHz to 4000 kHz;
(C) To provide that the 3600-3650 kHz segment of the 80-meter band will be made available for General and Advanced Class licensees, as was the case prior to 2006;
(D) To provide that the band segment 3600-3650 kHz will also be available to Novice and Technician Class licensees for telegraphy (consistent with the existing rules that now permit Novice and Technician Class licensees to use telegraphy in the General and Advanced Class RTTY/data subbands at 80, 40, and 15 Meters);
(E) To modify Section 97.221(b) of the Commission’s Rules governing automatically controlled digital stations, so that the segment of the 80-meter band that is available for automatically controlled digital operation shifts from 3585- 3600 kHz (as per the existing rules) to 3600-3615 kHz (consistent with the IARU Region 1 and Region 2 band plans); and
(F) To provide RTTY/data privileges to Novice and Technician licensees in their 15-meter band segment and their 80-meter band segment, the latter contingent on the rule changes at (A) and (B) hereinabove.
In the petition, with respect to the effect of the “rebanding” on Extra Class 75-meter phone operators, we stated as follows:
While ARRL received overwhelming support for the proposed 50 kilohertz expansion of the 80-meter band, concern was expressed by a few Extra Class licensees about the proposal, inasmuch as those licensees enjoy the inordinately large, exclusive 3600-3700 kHz segment for phone/image operation. Extra Class licensees, however, should be reminded that the 3700-3800 kHz segment of the 75-meter band is and would continue under ARRL's proposal to be available only to Extra and Advanced Class licensees. Only 7 percent of the Commission's licensees hold Advanced Class licenses, and that number will continue to decline toward zero as this license class is no longer being issued. Even if the phone/image subband at 75 meters is reduced in size from 400 kilohertz to 350 kilohertz as herein proposed, it will still be the largest phone/image subband among all of the HF Amateur allocations.
While this seems a reasonable justification for the proposed rearrangement of the 75/80 meter band, a vocal minority of Extra Class licensees that the ARRL HF Band Plan Committee heard from when the surveys were conducted are repeating their concerns to the FCC now.
Feel free to resend this to your Board colleagues not on the EC who might be interesting in urging some favorable comments on RM-11759. But we should be surreptitious about this effort lest we energize the opponents of our Petition.
73, Chris W3KD
-- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG
From: arrl-odv [ mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:36 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:25244] Bandplan proposal
I was informed about the need to have comments submitted for the ARRL Bandplan proposal now under consideration by the FCC, as discussed during the Exec Committee.
I see that the Director’s workbook, section 2.2 prohibits those on the board from filing comments with the FCC. Since Vice Directors are technically not on the board, are they free to file comments?
Should we be targeting groups which would agree with our proposal and encourage them to file? Perhaps CW/NTS operators or digital ops who would benefit from the proposal (Especially on 80 m)?
’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division ===== 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
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (5)
-
Bob Famiglio, K3RF -
David Norris -
Marty Woll -
Northwestern Division Director - Jim K7CEX -
Tom Frenaye