Rick, I am not a political scientist, but the description you use for the ARRL (quasi-democratic organization) is in correct. It is, I think, an indirect democracy just as in the case of our republic, i.e., we don't vote directly. We elect representatives who vote on our behalf.
So...beefing here is not very effective. You have to write to your respective ARRL Director to make him or her aware of your concerns. 73, John K8OCL ----Original Message Follows---- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL Withdraws "Regulation by Bandwidth" Petition, Plans to Refile Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:07:55 -0500 Danny is right on target on this. Loss of hard earned privileges is not going to be well received, especially those of us who worked hard to pass our exams, including 20 wpm at an FCC testing site. I am not very pleased with the "gain" of voice on 80 meters, but the loss of a huge segment of text data digital for myself and many other hams. Very, very, few hams have the slightest interest in e-mail over ham radio. The great majority do not even want it! If the ARRL remains a quasi-democratic organization, it absolutely must respond to the overwhelming preferences of its members. And it appears that they have. And at least they have admitted that it is a controversial issue. 73, Rick, KV9U Danny Douglas wrote: > Why is a 200 cy bandwidth ridiculous? I was greatly love to see that, > where we are using PSK. > > Why do you want 500 cy on 3.5-3.535? Thats CW country and that would only > draw other modes into where the CW DX is. Likewise 40-30-20 and 17 meters. > We dont need 500cy for cw do we? > > And EXCUS ME? Dropping the Extra only segments to 10 kc on 40 and 80? I > passed that test in order to get 25 KC. You will have a heck of a sales job > on that one. > > Bonnie, there are still many of us that arent interested one iota in > automatic modes, and probably the majority of those are the very ones > working down in that lower segment. You will never sell ME on it. > > This is exactly the reason the ARRL is drawing back on this to start with. > Any change at all is going to make a LARGE segment of amateurs very unhappy. > I certainly see a reason for bandwidth management, but not at this cost. > > >
