Paul, You are a remarkably eloqent and articulate individual and I support much of what you champion with regard to the ARRL and their sometimes misguided actions. I guess what bothers me, and apparently some others who have commented on the discussion, is the bickering that goes on between those who should be on the same side of the issue. I think the bandwidth proposal might have had some merit if it equally represented the various interest groups within the hobby. Unfortunately, like with any group, it is very difficult to arrive at any concensus when there are so many different niches represented under the banner of amateur radio. I hope that we can come up with enough agreement and interest in the common good to overcome some of the conflict. Such issues as BPL and the constant attack on our precious frequencies may be even more of a threat than our internal fights over how best to allocate our assigned spectrum.
I have wondered for a long time if it might be wise to ask for specific allocations in the bands for AM operation. Probably, however, even if the so-called windows were officially recognized, we would still be faced with the QRMers and the hecklers. I guess it just goes with the territory. 73, Jack, W9GT -------------- Original message -------------- From: VJB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Pete, WA2CWA is using a tactic often seen when > criticism backs someone against the wall -- he uses a > distracting topic to try to steer the conversation > away from the subject at hand. > > The proposal I helped write (to which he has referred) > has been comprehensively vetted after the group I was > involved with this past summer filed it as a Petition > with the FCC and published it in the same venues where > Pete participates. > > We have been receptive to support and criticism, and > both are appreciated, have been responded to, and > remain registered in how we will move forward should > the FCC accept the proposal for formal Comment. > > None of that has to do with our collective review here > and elsewhere of the bandwidth scheme that more > recently came from the group in Newington, unless of > course Pete, in his mind, has elevated the stature of > the seven-member Communications Think Tank to the same > level as the publishing, membership and subscription > group known as the ARRL. > > In that case, thanks for the compliment. > > To bring us back to the subject matter we are > discussing today, I again submit this nugget I found > penned by Mike, W8MW and posted to one of the threads > on QRZ.com He has summed up very well the sentiment > against the League's proposal that Pete, and a few > others, are failing to defend on its own merits. > > Paul/VJB > > Mike W8MW said -- > > > IMHO, attempts to tweak the league's petition cannot > mitigate the flawed process that produced a biased > plan. Among the many mis-steps of the digital > committee, they took it upon themselves to mingle in > the operating interests of legacy mode operators. A > handful of individuals not sharing these interests is > intent on placing new restrictions on them. I see > this as arrogance to the extreme from those > individuals and a serious lapse in stewardship by the > league. So now there's a petition seeking to regulate > us all, based on the views of a few and lacking > benefit of a fair and reasonable process involving all > stakeholders. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > ______________________________________________________________ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Dec 9 17:19:09 2005 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Original-To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Delivered-To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Received: from smtpauth06.mail.atl.earthlink.net (smtpauth06.mail.atl.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by mailman.qth.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C07859C16 for <amradio@mailman.qth.net>; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:19:06 -0500 (EST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=uplink.net; b=lSBZxV0pR4k6o7qRiwuNf1mJkesnjWcVi/PSdXlR0I5UsRvaGhJ4APWi5f4PV5CB; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [65.146.225.58] (helo=D9PBT931) by smtpauth06.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EkqXM-000812-Ix for amradio@mailman.qth.net; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:16:22 -0500 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Mike Sawyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Discussion of AM Radio" <amradio@mailman.qth.net> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] ARRL bandwidth scheme not accepted Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:16:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-ELNK-Trace: 550e0e8412faf0ec239a348a220c26096c8ed8299262100ebd361edc5aa73ee5a7ce0e8f8d31aa3f350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 65.146.225.58 X-BeenThere: amradio@mailman.qth.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list Reply-To: Discussion of AM Radio <amradio@mailman.qth.net> List-Id: Discussion of AM Radio <amradio.mailman.qth.net> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/private/amradio> List-Post: <mailto:amradio@mailman.qth.net> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:19:09 -0000 Pete, What's the problem? Is your precious (be)League(d) the only voice for amateur radio? I'll give the CTT guys credit for placing something out there that is fair and equitable to all modes. They placed it in all the ham radio venues for comment. I saw both praise and criticism given to them. At least they didn't do what the ARRgghhL did by drop-kicking it right to the FCC with out any input from members, (or at least the members I know). The time is coming very rapidly that hams will recognize the fact that the ARRgghhL has outlived its usefulness and a new voice will be heard speaking for the ham radio masses! Mike(y) W3SLK ----- Original Message ----- From: "peter markavage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <amradio@mailman.qth.net> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:23 PM Subject: [AMRadio] ARRL bandwidth scheme not accepted Geoff: I think you're missing the point here. VJB said: "Thanks for your thoughts. I'm totally with you on the need for Newington to poll its constituents BEFORE acting on a major policy or regulatory proposal like this one. <cut> Too bad that system has been discredited by the laundry list of bad moves that could have been avoided by the leadership in Newington, had they only alllowed popular opinion and asked some people for guidance on what they should do." Seven guys (CTT group) got together for some back-room activity and created a proposal, which was submitted to the FCC prior to the ARRL submission, that has far greater implications on our amateur radio service. Basically, their proposal removes any bandwidth limitations on any transmitted mode in the HF bands. Further, it also implies, that you can operate any mode, any bandwidth, anywhere your license allows, as long as you perceive you are not causing interference to any other station. Digital and analog modes are to co-exist by some undefined band plan and gentleman's agreement. I have yet to see any recommended or proposed band plan from this group or who would even develop this plan. To my original point: Since VJB stated "...need for Newington to poll its constituents BEFORE acting on a major policy or regulatory proposal like this one"; did the CTT group, which VJB is listed as a member, poll the amateur member users of these many digital and analog modes (some of which are still experimental in nature) or ask for guidance from them, prior to them submitting their proposal. Obviously, any amateur can submit a proposal to the FCC without asking anyone for input, but with this proposal having so many far reaching consequences for amateurs in the future, how much data did they collect, digest, and use prior to submitting their proposal. To their defense, they did include a survey called "An Analysis of Band Occupancy By Mode" on a "typical" day at a specific U. S. location in their proposal. I have not seen or heard of any other collected data beyond this simple survey. The ARRL solicited comments for over a year before it decided to move forward with it's proposal. >From those that may also want to review the CTT proposal, go here: http://amfone.com/proposal1.htm Pete, wa2cwa On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:19:51 -0600 W5OMR/Geoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >How many amateurs did you solicit comments from before you > submitted your > >proposal? I see your proposal has a section on "views considered" > from > >QRZ postings, but did you really go out and solicit comments and > >reactions to your tentative proposal before you issued it? I see > no > >record of that. > > > >Let's set the record straight. > > > > Gentlemen, Gentleman... who cares about the record? Let's stick to > the > subject at hand. > > AFTER this subject has it's final outcome, whatever that is, -THEN- > you > can argue semantics. > > Let's us -at least- remember that this is OUR hobby. WE are in it, > > together. Let's US work toward that end, shall we? > > > --- > 73 = Best Regards, > -Geoff/W5OMR ______________________________________________________________ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
