OK, well, let's see here: (1) Regulation by bandwith. Poorly written, poorly explained, IMHO, something I did mention to my Division Director prior to the petition withdrawl. I think that the intent of the petition was to (a) allow US amateurs the flexibility that amateurs in most of the rest of the world have, to move sub-band boundaries as conditions warrant, and (b) be flexible enough to accomodate new modes of operation as they become accepted, without lengthy waits on FCC rules changes.
The alleged "more room for PACTOR III robots" cannard is being spread by a small group of anti-PACTOR III/anti-WinLink individuals (there are several running posts on QRZ.COM on these and related subjects) who never can seem to be bothered, when asked, for verifiable facts. (One of these characters now refuses to answer me -- I'm a "winlid" and an "ARRL shill" because I kept asking simple questions that he ignored, deflected, or declined to answer. Oh yes, I'm now also a "hinternetter," whatever that's supposed to be). There's a very simple solution. If and when a replacement for the Regulation by Bandwith petition is submitted, just include an exception limiting private mailbox robots (be they PACTOR III or anything else) to a small sub-band segment. (2) It's amazing to me how many people claim that ARRL supported No Code, which about equals the number who claim that ARRL failed to support No Code. The two sides about wash out, except, of course, that either way, the League is an appropriate straw man. I strongly suspect that the reality of the situation was the League being privately informed by some FCC staffers in the know that No Code was going to become a reality whether they liked it or not, so better to prepare for it. That, to me, says a lot about how the FCC looks on the Amateur Service (can anyone say "BPL?"), but that's another thread for another time. Suffice to say that we should be glad that we had the League doing what it could in the face of often appears to be a Federal bureaucracy that is determined to do what's best... for the bureaucracy... (3) Yes, the Spanish language tests. That's another one that's been so blown out of proportion. Have you actually read what was proposed? Or are you just reacting to the xenophobia out there? The League pointed out to the other VEC's that VE teams were, on their own, translatting the tests into Spanish. They proposed, in essence, that the NCVEC develop a set of standard tests, so that there would be consistancy in what is ALREADY BEING DONE. Apparently enough of the other VEC's disagreed, so that was that. But make no mistake. VE teams ARE translatting AND GIVING the tests in Spanish. It's not against FCC rules! So this was NOT, contrary to some beliefs, an attempt to do something new. Merely to standardize an existing practice. Oh, and don't forget that Puerto Rico, which is US territory, is primarily a Spanish speaking area. (Lovely island; went there for our honeymoon, but we took the wrong road into the rain forest and didn't get to see too much. One of these days...) (4) ICOM sponsorship. Hmm. Let's see. ICOM offers to sponsor the costs involved with certain contests, which helps keep the costs down -- and there are costs involved in running a contest. We see it every day in some professional sports (have you looked at a baseball stadium lately? to say nothing of NASCAR?). So exactly how does ICOM sponsoring some contests take the "American" out of the ARRL? Besides... how many major manufacturers are out there anyway? And where are they? Could be that no one else offered. Maybe someone will in the future. So what? Now: Have you talked with your ARRL Director lately? Or your Section Manager? Have you told them how you feel? Have you presented them with facts to try to persuade them? If not... why not? If you don't like the way things are going, you're going to have to do more than kvetch on a reflector. Or nothing will change. It's that simple. 73, ron w3wn -----Original Message----- From: W2AGN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW Ron Notarius W3WN wrote: > It is your choice John, whether or not to join, or even like the League. > But to make such an inflammatory comment... what facts do you have to back > up that opinion? > 1. Their recent attempt at "Regulation by Bandwidth" which was a transparent attempt to make more room for PACTOR III robots. This was done mostly behind the backs of the membership. Finally, after losing a LOT of members, thanks to Skip Tenny exposing this plot, they withdrew their petition, blaming "widespread misconception." Which was their way of saying "Oops, we got caught." 2. The ARRL supported No-code. That was bad enough, but whether you are for or against "no-code," the fact that the Director's vote on the issue was made SECRET is not in keeping with an organization that is supposed to represent Ham Radio. 3. Latest ARRL fiasco. They wanted Spanish Language VE tests! Now I'm sorry if this offends the liberals among us, but if you want a US Ham license, you better be able to speak English! The VEC, in a rare show of intelligence, defeated this dumb idea. 4. There is more. The "sponsorship" of ICOM, which kind of takes the AMERICAN out of ARRL. The fact that the ARRL clings to its "non-profit" status, which cripples it when it comes to lobbying for Amateur radio, etc, etc. Don't get me wrong, the ARRL WAS ONCE the representative of Amateur Radio, and not the publishing house and lackey of Japanese Radio makers it has become. -- John - W2AGN Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org