Thank you, Ron, for telling it like it is!!
Bud Morin, K9ZT
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [DX-CHAT] LBOTW
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:19:12 -0400
From: Ron Notarius W3WN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
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
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
