[AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
As I've done on a variety of reflectors, I want to drop a note on here to thank those on the AM Reflector who took the time to send Comments for inclusion in the FCC database. As a result, the response to the League scheme to abandon mode-based HF coordination can clearly be called overwhelmingly negative. Several people making a tally found those opposed anywhere between 6:1 to 8:1, depending on how one interprets postings that saw a shred of hope. The League's Reply Comment to these concerns is at this link: (700K file size, Adobe PDF file type) http://www.wa3vjb.com/pics/LeagueReplyComments.pdf What's next? The FCC will take and consider the Comments and eventually issue either a Report and Order rejecting the petition, or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that may take suggestions from Commenters and try to salvage accomplishing the stated goals. Don't look for action anytime before the end of the year, according an FCC official who is in a position to know. Paul/VJB __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
Paul, we need to work through this there is some dangerous language in the ARRL's comments Brad KB7FQR -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of VJB Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:09 AM To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Subject: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally As I've done on a variety of reflectors, I want to drop a note on here to thank those on the AM Reflector who took the time to send Comments for inclusion in the FCC database. As a result, the response to the League scheme to abandon mode-based HF coordination can clearly be called overwhelmingly negative. Several people making a tally found those opposed anywhere between 6:1 to 8:1, depending on how one interprets postings that saw a shred of hope. The League's Reply Comment to these concerns is at this link: (700K file size, Adobe PDF file type) http://www.wa3vjb.com/pics/LeagueReplyComments.pdf What's next? The FCC will take and consider the Comments and eventually issue either a Report and Order rejecting the petition, or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that may take suggestions from Commenters and try to salvage accomplishing the stated goals. Don't look for action anytime before the end of the year, according an FCC official who is in a position to know. Paul/VJB __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
Re: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
I agree with Brad. As an officer of a public company I have many dealings with the SEC and have learned to spot and understand Gov-Speak in documents. What I read in that document was essentially an ominous set of pre suppositions and condesending characturizations along with some nice doggie head stroking. I do not like the tone or content of the document nor do I see anything positive about it. The length of time it takes to make major policy decisions is based in a historical psychological Government mentality that the policy will be changed but it takes two years for the public to accept it and go through the process of implementation. I think Brad and others who view this document with suspiction are well informed and highly sensitive as to how the Government really works in regulatory issues. Thanks for the bandwidth Ron Weaver - W6OM Web Site: www.qsl.net/w6om
RE: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
Ron, thanks for the input, this is what i mean, T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:04 AM To: Discussion of AM Radio Subject: Re: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally I agree with Brad. As an officer of a public company I have many dealings with the SEC and have learned to spot and understand Gov-Speak in documents. What I read in that document was essentially an ominous set of pre suppositions and condesending characturizations along with some nice doggie head stroking. I do not like the tone or content of the document nor do I see anything positive about it. The length of time it takes to make major policy decisions is based in a historical psychological Government mentality that the policy will be changed but it takes two years for the public to accept it and go through the process of implementation. I think Brad and others who view this document with suspiction are well informed and highly sensitive as to how the Government really works in regulatory issues. Thanks for the bandwidth Ron Weaver - W6OM Web Site: www.qsl.net/w6om __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
RE: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
Ron, Thanks for the comments, the language is almost condescending, and they are tiring to shift what we are tiring to say, It seems the ARRL is turning more political everyday, My comment to the FCC about automatic control, seemed to have caught the ARRL by surprise, and they tried to explain around it. poorly. Automatic control if allowed in the phone bands, WILL CAUSE HARMFUL INTERFERENCE. The automatic modes and digital modes need to have a place, BUT ONE CANNOT EXPECT THEM TO SHARE HARMLESSLY IN THE PHONE BANDS. This will be the case when Winlink and other for profit equipment makers are in the picture. I am disappointed with the ARRL not looking at the big picture and not being more creative, they are a claiming to be the VOICE OF THE AMATEUR RADIO COMMUNITY, LOOKING OUT FOR ALL OF US. ARRL PLEASE BE MORE CREATIVE IN GUARDING OUR RIGHTS AS RADIO OPERATORS. Thanks Brad KB7FQR -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:04 AM To: Discussion of AM Radio Subject: Re: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally I agree with Brad. As an officer of a public company I have many dealings with the SEC and have learned to spot and understand Gov-Speak in documents. What I read in that document was essentially an ominous set of pre suppositions and condesending characturizations along with some nice doggie head stroking. I do not like the tone or content of the document nor do I see anything positive about it. The length of time it takes to make major policy decisions is based in a historical psychological Government mentality that the policy will be changed but it takes two years for the public to accept it and go through the process of implementation. I think Brad and others who view this document with suspiction are well informed and highly sensitive as to how the Government really works in regulatory issues. Thanks for the bandwidth Ron Weaver - W6OM Web Site: www.qsl.net/w6om __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
Re: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
I especially like the part that says: The response illustrates that ARRL's extensive publicity surrounding its proposal since the concept was first developed in 2002 was successful. ARRL has repeatedly both ARRL members and non-members of the concept emission mode. It has repeatedly asked members *and non-members* (italics in their document) for input about it, and has received extensive feedback, which was utilized in development of the final plan. Hmmm.really? I don't personally know of anyone, member or not, who received or was asked anything about this. Furthermore, if one follows the comments on their 'concept', it's pretty clear that the vast majority of those responding did not agree, including members. Where, exactly, is this utilized in development of the final plan? And that's in just the first paragraph of their reply. They waste no time in getting back to piling it deep, all the while ignoring reality, at the very least. Unfortunately, they do make good use of those who seemingly support the status quo. This plays right into their hands by making their case for progress and advancement, instead of remaining stagnant. I'm not saying ham radio is stagnant, just that I can see them lining up their little League ducks in a row. Paul, will the group involved with RM-11305 be filing a reply as well? It would be nice if some of the issues raised by those who objected could be addressed, bringing the proposal in line with any appropriate treaties, laws, promises, or whatever else. To be honest, I was more surprised at those against this concept than the opposition to the League's idea. It's amazing how many people seem to want the false security of having their special niche protected at the expense of all. Besides, if the ARRL really believes what it says at the end of paragraph 6 about voluntary cooperation, there should be no problem. (o: In a time when so many claim to object to special treatment of the minorities over the majority, you'd think it would be different. As Phil clearly pointed out, many still seem to prefer a back-of-the-bus mentality for American hams while the vast majority of the world enjoys true freedom and liberty in their spectrum usage (IARU and applicable rulings excepted). BTW, I think it's time to stop referring to AM or any mode we hope to keep as a 'legacy' mode. It sounds too much like 'special exception', like the 9 khz deal. AM is a standard voice mode and shouldn't be made into something that can be represented being a special interest mode only. By their own remarks, the ARRL is only too accepting of this idea. Wonder why? de Todd/'Boomer' KA1KAQ
RE: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
Thanks Brad I agree, the document is very condesending and clealy written to set the stage for a change without inciting another barrage of comments. The comment about how the ARRL has found a middle ground is an insult to anyone with a valid Amatuer Radio License and can think for themselves. I will ask my counsel what is necessary to file an injunction to stop the process and have it sent back to an independent organization for further study. All the Best Ron Weaver - W6OM Web Site: www.qsl.net/w6om
RE: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
Ron, I have experience in politics and running companies, would like to chat with you about legal action, sometimes its the only way. or maybe their are other ways if the ARRL would listen to us and modify there position. Brad KB7FQR -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:44 AM To: Discussion of AM Radio; Discussion of AM Radio Cc: Mike DORROUGH Subject: RE: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally Thanks Brad I agree, the document is very condesending and clealy written to set the stage for a change without inciting another barrage of comments. The comment about how the ARRL has found a middle ground is an insult to anyone with a valid Amatuer Radio License and can think for themselves. I will ask my counsel what is necessary to file an injunction to stop the process and have it sent back to an independent organization for further study. All the Best Ron Weaver - W6OM Web Site: www.qsl.net/w6om __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
RE: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
On 23 Feb 2006 at 9:47, UVCM INC wrote: Ron, I have experience in politics and running companies, would like to chat with you about legal action, sometimes its the only way. or maybe their are other ways if the ARRL would listen to us and modify there position. Brad KB7FQR Brad don't hold your breath to see THAT happen... The ARRL Directors and top brass have demonstrated an incredible level of intransigence, and treachery against the clearly communicated will of the majority of radio amateurs. They have dug in to this amazingly stupid position for some time now. I don't expect them to change one bit. The fact of the matter is that ARRL is broken! We need something else with some integrity to replace ARRL, or at least to become a viable alternative until such time as we amateurs who still love and value the hobby can see this obsolete, self-perpetuating old boys' club deposed. I know many are still holding out hope that the League can be reformed. All I see is that it gets worse and worse all the time.
Re: RE: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
I just downloaded it at work today and got through the first page or so. even then I was stunned at what the comments said. If I recollect correctly, the ARRL states that the excellant turnout of comments shows how well the ARRL publicized their comments, and that the excellant turnout of comments shows there is no apathy in the ham community! You gotta be kidding me!! 900 comments / 150,000 ARRL members is a GOOD turnout of a) ARRL members and/or b) the entire ham community? They're trying to blow smoke up the FCC's a, well, you get the idea 73 Mark K3MSB
Re: [AMRadio] League Bandwidth petition - final tally
Brian Carling wrote: On 23 Feb 2006 at 9:47, UVCM INC wrote: Ron, I have experience in politics and running companies, would like to chat with you about legal action, sometimes its the only way. or maybe their are other ways if the ARRL would listen to us and modify there position. Brad KB7FQR Brad don't hold your breath to see THAT happen... The ARRL Directors and top brass have demonstrated an incredible level of intransigence, and treachery against the clearly communicated will of the majority of radio amateurs. They have dug in to this amazingly stupid position for some time now. I don't expect them to change one bit. The fact of the matter is that ARRL is broken! We need something else with some integrity to replace ARRL, or at least to become a viable alternative until such time as we amateurs who still love and value the hobby can see this obsolete, self-perpetuating old boys' club deposed. I know many are still holding out hope that the League can be reformed. All I see is that it gets worse and worse all the time. __ AMR Absolutely correct. I strongly object to them dubbing themselves The National Organization for Amateur Radio. The membership is a small percentage of Amateur Radio, and the3y represent only a small percentage of that.( Mainly Winlink users). -- _ _ _ _ _ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ John L. Sielke ( W ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( G ) ( N ) http://w2agn.net \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ CRUSTY OLD CURMUDGEON - AND PROUD OF IT!
