VJB said - Pete and I had a separate and direct email exchange underway, and I feel there's no bad blood.
How can you not like a guy who works SSB DX stations on AM. Paul and I have known each other for many years; call it friendly dueling; and I do respect his opinions no matter how far off the wall they might be. You should see us when we get together in person. For your info, Paul, I was "there" when the discussion of this alternative proposal (pre-CTT) first started to take shape. My initial reaction was that these two proposals would give the FCC a lot to chew on as they ponder the spectrum under their watch and the amateur radio service's continued viability in future years. VJB said - So now they've overreacted and are embracing the novelty of "digital" peddled to society by commercial interests (HDTV, cellphones, IPods), but for the hobby via a charismatic leader who is pushing a specific digital hookup between ham radio and the Internet. Here's a quote from the FCC: FCC QUOTE that was part of their Discussion from a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11/2004. "As an initial matter, we note that one of the purposes of the amateur service is to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.(1) We believe that amateur radio operators using amateur service spectrum to develop new communications systems are using the service in a manner that is consistent with the basis and purpose of the amateur service. We also believe that our Rules should not be an impediment to amateur radio operator's development of new or improved communication systems. In this regard, we note that the reason amateur radio operators currently may not transmit communications that combine image emission types and data emission types on HF frequency segments where data emissions are authorized is not a technical reason, but rather is because our Rules do not authorize stations to transmit both image and data emission types on any HF frequency segments. (2) We also note that amateur radio operators apparently have developed communication systems and technologies that transmit both image and data emission types, and that they are using these systems for communicating. For this reason, we are persuaded that our Rules are not in harmony with current emission and operating practices and that our Rules may be impeding amateur radio operators in advancing the radio art." Pete, wa2cwa "Delete key works for me" On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:47:01 -0800 (PST) VJB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jack, thank you. > > Pete and I had a separate and direct email exchange > underway, and I feel there's no bad blood. > > I really dislike confrontation. I prefer > collaboration, and it's my nature to spend a lot of > time making sure the other guy feels like he's getting > heard -- in addition to making sure I actually > understand what he's saying. > > We could fill a book with the societal problems > displayed in ham radio. The hobby is tracking rather > faithfully the general decline in society at large. > > Unfortunately, the last remaining institution that > might have served as a restraining, stabilizing, and > positive/nurturing influence has abdicated the role. > The reasons are complex, but mostly seem rooted in a > failure to keep up with the cool stuff in the hobby, > while being stubbornly loyal to the way it was always > done. > > Now, it's too late to stem a major loss in support > (they really are down to about 20 percent > representation, by their own official figures), and > their confused and haphazard leadership behaves as if > it is very scared of the future. > > So now they've overreacted and are embracing the > novelty of "digital" peddled to society by commercial > interests (HDTV, cellphones, IPods), but for the hobby > via a charismatic leader who is pushing a specific > digital hookup between ham radio and the Internet. > > The group who spawned this proposal further corrupted > the already shaky political process the League has > chronically failed to repair. This would include the > longstanding lack of published criteria for such "ad > hoc" committees employed over the years to shape the > leadership's decision-making. > > I hate being a negative, pain-in-the-ass about their > system, but their methods are not doing anyone any > good, and their bandwidth scheme is only the latest > example of faulty product from a defective system. > > I have to have faith the FCC will see it the same way > and toss it out. > > There **are** many niches, specialties, and minority > operating interests in the hobby. I am of like-mind > with your view we really must pull together and > minimize these little turf wars. > > The problem remains that the approach the League took > foments just that kind of infighting. > > The best answer, for the meantime, is to fight efforts > to give what most people would consider an unfair > advantage to one category of activity, inappropriately > using the regulatory structure besides. > > After that, if there's still a stomach to radically > change what we now have, perhaps a group will coalesce > out of various "special interests" including the AM > community, to step around the League and forge a more > viable approach in a process that would yield > voluntary, broadbased support. > > The ARRL's leadership really needs to be smacked > around on this one so they will sit down at a table > not their own and honestly take part on a lateral, > evenhanded basis with other, more active and involved > groups and individuals representing all our activities > at the outset. > > For something of this magnitude, that's not an > unreasonable plan. > > Paul
