RE: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation
Dave, You make several excellent points! OK...Chris isn't perfect ($%#@). Plus, the recent "alternative" ARRL proposal causes me some concern. For example, might we not want some digital mode above 3 kHz someday? How about one spot on just a few bands where up to 6 kHz is permitted? Why take away privileges we already have in the name of our own self-defense? It doesn't make any sense to me. 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:51:39 - >>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we in an adult conversation here, or what? >>>It was the attorney that made the error, John. From the document you forwarded: "It is apparent that this inadvertent error, which is exclusively that of undersigned counsel for ARRL, has resulted in some serious misunderstandings, which are regrettable." 2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI). >>>Really? Where exactly what this broad input sought? I checked the "Amateur Radio News" section of the ARRL's web site going all the way back to 2007-01-01 and could find no mention of a proposed FCC submission that amateurs could review. >>>The ARRL did float its draft bandwidth petition before submitting it to the FCC, but then ignored all of the negative reaction to the proposal's expansion of semi-automatic operation and provided no response whatsoever to the issues raised. If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office! That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise I wouldn't bother having this discussion. >>>If I don't like the ARRL's actions, highlighting the shortcomings of those actions to many ARRL members is a far more effective way to accomplish positive change than by casting a single vote. Yes, I am an ARRL member. I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so he continues to have my full support. >>>Perhaps we'd be better off with directors who wouldn't need to display their skills at damage control quite so frequently. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation
Does the ARRL post, and seek comment, when they plan on seeking new rules? I assume that posting their proposals for a 30 day comment period would help spot heir errors. Andy K3UK On 3/23/07, John Champa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave, 1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we in an adult conversation here, or what? 2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI). If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office! That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise I wouldn't bother having this discussion. I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so he he continues to have my full support. See ya on MT-63? 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:22:11 - 1. The folks at Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper are unpaid volunteers? 2. One way to avoid such errors is to openly seeking broad review beforehand; defects are less expensive (time, $) to correct sooner than later. The ARRL does a lot of things well, and deserve the appropriate accolades. However, their effort to modify frequency allocations has been a study in serial incompetence. They are proposing to allow unattended stations without busy frequency detectors to operate more broadly, they initiated an action that jammed CW and Data into the bottom 100 KHz of 80m, and who knows what we'll get from this latest round of semantic follies. The ARRL represents the US Amateur Radio Community to the FCC. We should be setting high expectations and holding them accountable when they fall short, not lowering the bar and making excuses. If there's a faint glow of hope in that material, it Dave K1ZZ's acknowledgement of broad opposition by the amateur radio community to the ARRL' RM-11306 proposal. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com , "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dave, > > Ease up a bit, please. These are just like us, and they make mistakes > once in a while. Also, Directors are an unpaid, volunteer position, so it > takes a lot of dedication to the hobby. I don't have it in me. Do you? > > 73, > John > K8OCL -- Andy K3UK Skype Me : callto://andyobrien73 www.obriensweb.com
RE: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation
Dave, 1. Not the attorney, silly! I had to pay my attorney when I was forced to take legal action against other Radio Amateurs, but it was my unpaid volunteer efforts he was defending. Are we in an adult conversation here, or what? 2. The Board (remember, those unpaid volunteers?) did seek broad input. But you know most Hams, they don't respond until the UFO lands in their backyard (HI). If you don't like their actions, then vote them out of office! That is, of course, assuming you are an ARRL member, otherwise I wouldn't bother having this discussion. I think my Director (Jim, GLD) did a great job of damage control, so he he continues to have my full support. See ya on MT-63? 73, John K8OCL Original Message Follows From: "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:22:11 - 1. The folks at Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper are unpaid volunteers? 2. One way to avoid such errors is to openly seeking broad review beforehand; defects are less expensive (time, $) to correct sooner than later. The ARRL does a lot of things well, and deserve the appropriate accolades. However, their effort to modify frequency allocations has been a study in serial incompetence. They are proposing to allow unattended stations without busy frequency detectors to operate more broadly, they initiated an action that jammed CW and Data into the bottom 100 KHz of 80m, and who knows what we'll get from this latest round of semantic follies. The ARRL represents the US Amateur Radio Community to the FCC. We should be setting high expectations and holding them accountable when they fall short, not lowering the bar and making excuses. If there's a faint glow of hope in that material, it Dave K1ZZ's acknowledgement of broad opposition by the amateur radio community to the ARRL' RM-11306 proposal. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dave, > > Ease up a bit, please. These are just like us, and they make mistakes > once in a while. Also, Directors are an unpaid, volunteer position, so it > takes a lot of dedication to the hobby. I don't have it in me. Do you? > > 73, > John > K8OCL
