John Sielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made an utterence to the qrplist gang ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Okay Jim; > > I have pieced together the following suggestions from emails here on > QRP-l. (I have not taken the time to credit these ideas to their > respective authors. Please accept my apologies.) > > If taken together as a whole these suggestions will work well to "...avoid > undesirable outcomes..." . > > 1 - Go back to the drawing board and appoint a new committee with > representatives from all user groups that are affected. Be sure to agree > to publish all members' opinions regardless of whether these disagree with > anything published by the committee. Be sure to follow through with this > promise. > > 2 - Segregate all automatic stations to a separate portion of each hf band > whether they are communicating with other automatic stations or manually > controlled stations. > > 3 - Consider restoration of cw identification requirements for all digital > modes. Be sure to also consider extending these requirements to include > identification of the protocol(s) being used. > > 4 - Examine the interference being caused by the adoption of part 97.221C > 9 years ago. Be sure to address cross-mode interference. > > (This rule making 9 years ago specifically promised us that it was not to > be used to allow stations to "own" a frequency. I am sure those of us that > have been adversely affected by automatic stations "owning" a frequency > would like to see such new re-examination. ALSO it is important to > understand that the current ARRL proposal reinforces this frequency owning > if part 97.221C is allowed to remain in place without regard to cross-mode > interference issues.) > > 5 - Consider adoption of rules to require ALL digital protocols in use to > be publicly documented sufficiently to allow examination, in real time, of > ALL sent "packets" for routing information. > > 6 - Encourage the adoption and use of new digital protocols that can be > used in-band with other modes without causing interference. This is > particular is NOT being promoted even though it is 9 years since the > digital modes have had the band space and rule making that allow them to > begin development of these methods with the adoption of part 97.221C . > > 7 - Submit any new proposals to an outside committee of experts for review > concurrent with public scrutiny. Be sure to follow through with the > results of these efforts. If you accept comments be sure to publish them > in full. > > All of the above are suggested because they point to problems either > within the current proposal, the processes they used, and/or based on > existing problems with digital stations not sharing the frequencies they > use with other modes. > > Hope this is what your were looking for. > > > Vy 72; > > Bob > w9ya > > > >
Bob, That is an excellent synopsis of comments. They should be forwarded to ALL ARRL directors, with the note that they came from a QRP CW organization with over 300 members. (QRP-L still claims that, don't they?). Seriously, all you ARRL sheep out there should get those comments in, before you find yourself draped over the fence, and the farmer in his hip boots behind you doing unmentionable things. -- +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ John L. Sielke |W| |2| |A| |G| |N| [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ http://w2agn.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Behalf of John Sielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Submissions: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unsubscribe qrplist in body Hopelessly Lost: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - help in body of message Zerobeat Web Page: http://www.zerobeat.net Brought to you courtesy of TLCHost.net http://www.tlchost.net/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
