Proposal for new Canadian HF band plans

[g4tut]

Proposal for new Canadian HF band plans

Canada's national amateur radio society, Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC), have proposed a new HF band plan for Canadian radio hams.

RAC's HF Band Planning Committee has revised the present band plan and it is now posted on the Web at http://www.rac.ca/service/hfband.htm

They say, comments and suggestions are valuable in helping the HF Band Planning Committee to make this document a useful tool for Canadian operators. Please send them to the following e-mail address: rac.hfbpc.poll at gmail.com

PDF document at
http://www.rac.ca/service/RAC_Draft_HF_Band_PlanR1.pdf





Daily Amateur Radio News Service: (http://www.southgatearc.org/)
Updated every day - 365 days per year

Get our News Headlines for your Website:
http://www.southgatearc.org/rss/index.htm

Send Us Your News Items:
http://www.southgatearc.org/news/your_news.htm

[n4qa]

Aren't we reaching back a little far (a dozen or so years) for this?
You'd think we're all waiting for ARRL to get its bandplan act together or something.
72.
Bill, N4QA

[n3vbn]

They can come up with a band plan in the northern country but they can't do anything about blatant violators of rules and regs..something doesn't make sense

[ky5u]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Cananda a party to a Bandwidth based Regulatory scheme? Anyway, I opened this with a jaundiced eye given the history of IC as a wimpy organization, but I must say I was suprized. This (with minor editing) could serve as an excellent model for an ARRL plan.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 19 2007,07:46)]Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Cananda a party to a Bandwidth based Regulatory scheme? Anyway, I opened this with a jaundiced eye given the history of IC as a wimpy organization, but I must say I was suprized. This (with minor editing) could serve as an excellent model for an ARRL plan.
Charlie,

I agree. This would be a *very* good bandplan for us to follow as well.

What do you suppose the chances are of the ARRL accepting something not developed by them as way to things?

tim ab0wr

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 19 2007,08:15)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 19 2007,07:46)]Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Cananda a party to a Bandwidth based Regulatory scheme? Anyway, I opened this with a jaundiced eye given the history of IC as a wimpy organization, but I must say I was suprized. This (with minor editing) could serve as an excellent model for an ARRL plan.
Charlie,

I agree. This would be a *very* good bandplan for us to follow as well.

What do you suppose the chances are of the ARRL accepting something not developed by them as way to things?

tim ab0wr
Yep. Take out the "voice" in the bands where it is not legal in the US, add the automatic subbands, clean up the 40 meter free-for-all around 7040 (leave the references to narrowband DX there but cut it off at 7045 back to CW only up to at least 7060) and it would be close. Might need some debate on 160 meters... Alot closer than anything I have seen from the Alibi Ready Radio League.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 19 2007,11:15)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 19 2007,07:46)]Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Cananda a party to a Bandwidth based Regulatory scheme? Anyway, I opened this with a jaundiced eye given the history of IC as a wimpy organization, but I must say I was suprized. #This (with minor editing) could serve as an excellent model for an ARRL plan.
Charlie,

I agree. This would be a *very* good bandplan for us to follow as well.

What do you suppose the chances are of the ARRL accepting something not developed by them as way to things?

tim ab0wr
Why do you automatically assume that the League wouldn't look into this (as is inferred by your comment)?

Remember that RAC was the result of the merger of the old CARF and CRRL (aka ARRL Canadian Division). #Further consider that the RAC President does often attend the ARRL Board Meetings (granted in a non-voting capacity, but still there and with input). #

If you think this is a good idea, with minor modifications to allow for existing FCC rules -- and it is -- why don't you write, call, or email your Division Director and tell him/her that you support this... and why.

[k4kyv]

One positive move is that they replaced "SSB" with "phone" for the voice allocations. There ARE other modes of voice transmission, legal on the ham bands, besides SSB.

[K3UD]

This seems to be quite a bit better than what the ARRL proposed and I could live with it.

However we have this disclaimer:

"The HF Band Plan is a voluntary, gentleman's agreement, intended for the guidance of and observation by Canadian Radio Amateurs. Without these guidelines chaos would set in. The main mode of enforcement is peer pressure."

This might work well in Canada but I can see all kind of abuses down here, especially during contests. Also, the so called gentleman's agreements tend to be ignored to some extent here in the US. In effect there is no enforcement from Industry Canada as it concerns the band plan. When there is no Sheriff there will be some bad things happening. As much as I wish it was true, I don't think that peer pressure is the answer, although I would love to see it work the way the author envisions it.

73
George
K3UD

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (K3UD @ July 19 2007,12:20)]This seems to be quite a bit better than what the ARRL proposed and I could live with it.

However we have this disclaimer:

"The HF Band Plan is a voluntary, gentleman's agreement, intended for the guidance of and observation by Canadian Radio Amateurs. Without these guidelines chaos would set in. The main mode of enforcement is peer pressure."

This might work well in Canada but I can see all kind of abuses down here, especially during contests. Also, the so called gentleman's agreements tend to be ignored to some extent here in the US. In effect there is no enforcement from Industry Canada as it concerns the band plan. When there is no Sheriff there will be some bad things happening. As much as I wish it was true, I don't think that peer pressure is the answer, although I would love to see it work the way the author envisions it.

73
George
K3UD
Alas, you are probably correct.

The second after the US went to a voluntary bandplan there would be a group of SSB operators running on 3503khz and Pactor stations on 3920khz. I have exactly zero doubt that this would happen.

That still wouldn't keep the FCC from imposing this kind of a bandplan as regulation.

tim ab0wr

[M3GID]

Jeepers!

Do you guys ever actually GO ON AIR or do you just sit and whine about things all day??!!

There are those that legislate, those that permeate, those that hesitate and those that activate, which party do you fall in??

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.....

And neither should age be a "qualifying factor" in determining what is seen to be right or wrong, I'm a young 43 years old, and I have a view too!

This world sucks!

di dah di dah dit!

dit dit

de Geoff
M0GID

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 19 2007,10:03)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 19 2007,11:15)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 19 2007,07:46)]Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Cananda a party to a Bandwidth based Regulatory scheme? Anyway, I opened this with a jaundiced eye given the history of IC as a wimpy organization, but I must say I was suprized. This (with minor editing) could serve as an excellent model for an ARRL plan.
Charlie,

I agree. This would be a *very* good bandplan for us to follow as well.

What do you suppose the chances are of the ARRL accepting something not developed by them as way to things?

tim ab0wr
Why do you automatically assume that the League wouldn't look into this (as is inferred by your comment)?

Remember that RAC was the result of the merger of the old CARF and CRRL (aka ARRL Canadian Division). Further consider that the RAC President does often attend the ARRL Board Meetings (granted in a non-voting capacity, but still there and with input).

If you think this is a good idea, with minor modifications to allow for existing FCC rules -- and it is -- why don't you write, call, or email your Division Director and tell him/her that you support this... and why.
You are kidding, right? Tell me you really believe the ARRL would accept this as a regulatory plan.

Think hard about the reason the ARRL wants to change the regulatory paradigm we live under and see how that reason fits in with this bandplan.

I have no doubt we will see this plan rejected by the ARRL as not being suitable for the US, no doubt at all.

I will forward this to my director. It's just too bad this didn't come out last week so I could have sent it to him before he left for the BOD meeting.

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (M3GID @ July 19 2007,13:05)]Jeepers!

Do you guys ever actually GO ON AIR or do you just sit and whine about things all day??!!

There are those that legislate, those that permeate, those that hesitate and those that activate, which party do you fall in??

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.....

And neither should age be a "qualifying factor" in determining what is seen to be right or wrong, I'm a young 43 years old, and I have a view too!

This world sucks!

di dah di dah dit!

dit dit

de Geoff
M0GID
Oh, give me a break.

I just finished up soldering together a softrock40 80m/40m SDR kit and came over here to the computer for some relaxation. Once I'm done I'll start on an enclosure and power supply for the unit.

There are lots of things for hams to do besides talk on the radio.-- like learning how a Tayloe detector in an SDR works.

What's the old saying about horizons?

tim ab0wr

[n8xd]

Oh I'm sure the ARRL would accept it after they added a WINLINK center of activity to all of the bands. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[k3wrv]

What ever happened to the idea that Hams are "Gentlemen".

Guess it's "Gone with the Wind".

But it started out as a pretty civil thread, so why SNAFU it http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

The question is not if the Leaaguuue will buy it, but will the Hammes? This is not Slashdot, so let's behave for at least 5 min before we go QSY 27*

[ab8yy]

I have to agree with tim, the ARRL wouldn't want anything to do with this unless it fit into their own "agenda" and it doesn't as written. XD said it right - there would have to be unlimited access for winlink/pactor III before they would propose such a thing and THIS is what hams won't accept. Or at least most hams who do NOT use ARS as a substitute for the internet.

As for contesters, give em a little break - there aren't that many contests which cover all bands and modes. And most are only for a day or two. I think they should stay within the bandplan agreements, and most I think do. The biggest problem is the nets think that even though there is an operator on their frequency they have the right to it. That is where things get crazy and the nets need to move slightly one side or the other to avoid interference to the first person on the frequency. And this isn't a gentlemen's agreement, this is the law.

Steve

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 19 2007,07:46)]Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Canada a party to a Bandwidth based Regulatory scheme? Anyway, I opened this with a jaundiced eye given the history of IC as a wimpy organization, but I must say I was surprised. This (with minor editing) could serve as an excellent model for an ARRL plan.
The KISS principle was applied to this document, and quite well I might add.

I like it... other than the unacceptably narrow beacon band on 10 meters, it looks doable. But alas, the League would never buy off on this simple and elegant plan -- it really doesn't fit their need and desire for paradigmatic action.

73.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (M3GID @ July 19 2007,16:05)]Jeepers!

Do you guys ever actually GO ON AIR or do you just sit and whine about things all day??!!

There are those that legislate, those that permeate, those that hesitate and those that activate, which party do you fall in??

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.....

And neither should age be a "qualifying factor" in determining what is seen to be right or wrong, I'm a young 43 years old, and I have a view too!

This world sucks!

di dah di dah dit!

dit dit

de Geoff
M0GID
I could use England on 30 or 17 CW (worked but not yet confirmed). Want to make a sked this weekend?

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 19 2007,16:12)]Quote[/b] (M3GID @ July 19 2007,13:05)]Jeepers!

Do you guys ever actually GO ON AIR or do you just sit and whine about things all day??!!

There are those that legislate, those that permeate, those that hesitate and those that activate, which party do you fall in??

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.....

And neither should age be a "qualifying factor" in determining what is seen to be right or wrong, I'm a young 43 years old, and I have a view too!

This world sucks!

di dah di dah dit!

dit dit

de Geoff
M0GID
Oh, give me a break.

I just finished up soldering together a softrock40 80m/40m SDR kit and came over here to the computer for some relaxation. Once I'm done I'll start on an enclosure and power supply for the unit.

There are lots of things for hams to do besides talk on the radio.-- like learning how a Tayloe detector in an SDR works.

What's the old saying about horizons?

tim ab0wr
Gotta love it. Just gotta love it. The plan has just come out, and already you've condemned the League for not being interested in it... even though you admit that there's no way that they could have evaluated it yet.

And the fellow curmudgeons are lining up right behind you in link-step head nodding agreement. And then pat youselves on the back for oh so obviously being right.

Must be nice to be accuser, arresting officer, prosecutor, jury and judge. Why bother giving them a chance? No, we already know, so let's just blast the hell out of them anyway.

Feh. I'm going back to 30 meters while the band is open.

[n4qa]

oops!
Missed the link to the July 2007 RAC plan...never mind.

I *like* the newly-proposed Canadian bandplans.
ARRL could do (and has done) a lot worse than this.

Tell you what...

If ARRL will espouse...or, at least plagiarize...these newly-proposed Canadian bandplans, I'll renew my ARRL membership!

But, I ain't buyin' no bricks...

72.
Bill, N4QA

[W2IRT]

What we really need is a solid proposal within the DXing community for an SSB DX window on 40m. Face it, in less than two years all the broadcasters will (theoretically) be gone from 7100 to 7200 and 7000-7200 will be a worldwide primary amateur allocation.

Much as every other band has either a well defined DX window or a well-known DXpedition frequency (1830-1845, 3790-3800, 14195, 18145, 21295, 24945, 28495), 40 is the only band that's essentially "whatever goes;" especially with the current requirement for split phone operation between Region 2 and the Rest Of The World.

I'd like to propose that 7145 be established as the 40m DXpedition calling frequency, with splits up 5-10 or so from there. This would be within the Advanced-Class and Extra-Class allocations, but not General (we DO need to give them an incentive to upgrade after all). This allocation would also be in a part of 40 that's available to all three ITU regions (regions 1 and 3 will not have 7200-7300).

This would also be within the tuning range of most 40m antennas; necessary since most DX on 40 will still be CW near the band-edge, and getting the full 300 kHz out of a 40m antenna is not all that easy but 150-160 kHz is usually do-able.

Whaddya think?
73,
Peter, W2IRT

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] (n3vbn @ July 19 2007,02:18)]They can come up with a band plan in the northern country but they can't do anything about blatant violators of rules and regs..something doesn't make sense
You wouldn't be referring to this guy (http://www.ve7kfm.com/) would you?

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (n4qa @ July 19 2007,20:04)]Tell you what...

If ARRL will espouse...or, at least plagiarize...these newly-proposed Canadian bandplans, I'll renew my ARRL membership!
Yep... right! I agree. I'd renew, too.

[K2PG]

Quote[/b] (W2IRT @ July 19 2007,00:20)]Much as every other band has either a well defined DX window or a well-known DXpedition frequency (1830-1845, 3790-3800, 14195, 18145, 21295, 24945, 28495), 40 is the only band that's essentially "whatever goes;" especially with the current requirement for split phone operation between Region 2 and the Rest Of The World.
There's no such requirement in Region 2...unless you're shackled with a U.S. license! The United States is the only country in the world whose amateurs are forbidden to use voice below 7100 kHz. Why not bring us into line with the rest of the world and allow voice operation below 7100?

When 40 opens for DX propagation at night, there's little CW activity above 7040 or 7050, as the segment from there to 7100 is loaded with foreign SSB stations (including Canadians, whose rules are far more reasonable than ours). Why shouldn't we be able to join them on their frequencies? If the CW and digital operators think this would displace them, they could go to 30 meters. Voice modes are not allowed anywhere in that band and the propagation is similar to 40 meters.

There is a solution to the problem of contesters disregarding bandplans: Let the sponsoring organizations disqualify any contester who violates the bandplan.

There is a bit of irony, if not outright hypocrisy, in the position of many Americans on amateur radio regulation. Americans love to preach to the rest of the world about liberty, yet those same self-hating Americans, these same Uncle Toms of the radio world, love to have the government dictate bandplans to them. Could these be the same people who voluntarily buy homes in places with dictatorial homeowners' associations and restrictive covenants that ban antennas?

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (M3GID @ July 19 2007,13:05)]Jeepers!

Do you guys ever actually GO ON AIR or do you just sit and whine about things all day??!!

There are those that legislate, those that permeate, those that hesitate and those that activate, which party do you fall in??

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.....

And neither should age be a "qualifying factor" in determining what is seen to be right or wrong, I'm a young 43 years old, and I have a view too!

This world sucks!

di dah di dah dit!

dit dit

de Geoff
M0GID
Troll post.

[ky5u]

The problem now is that the bandplan for the ARRL is not as clear as this Canadian plan. As a CW user, the Canadian plan is explicit where voluntary "CW ONLY" areas are. It specifies narrowband data use areas. As I said before, it needs a tweak or two, but it's a pretty good start.

If I were the ARRL, I'd adopt a modified version of this plan submitted along with the bandwidth based regulation plan. Look:

Quote[/b] ]14000 - 14070 CW (100Hz)
14070 - 14080 CW*, Narrow band digital (500Hz)
14080 - 14090 CW*, Narrow Band digital (500Hz)
14090 - 14099.5 CW*, Narrow band and Wide band digital(3kHz)
14099.5 - 14100.5 Beacons(3kHz)
14112 - 14350 CW*, Phone (Notes 2 & 3)(3kHz**)
14225 - 14235 CW*, Phone, SSTV, FAX(3kHz)

* Although CW is allowed everywhere in the band, normal use is regulated to 14000-14070

** Exception for DSB AM up to 8kHz)

Note (Ed): Automatic Subband must be added


So we'd have a regulation that proposes 100kHz, 500kHz, and 300kHz bandwidth segments (including AM exception) with a clear bandplan overlay that could be changed over the years as mode popularity shifted, and eventually dropped in 10years or so.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 20 2007,08:56)]The problem now is that the bandplan for the ARRL is not as clear as this Canadian plan. #As a CW user, the Canadian plan is explicit where voluntary "CW ONLY" areas are. #It specifies narrowband data use areas. As I said before, it needs a tweak or two, but it's a pretty good start.

If I were the ARRL, I'd adopt a modified version of this plan submitted along with the bandwidth based regulation plan. #Look:

Quote[/b] ]14000 - 14070 CW (100Hz)
14070 - 14080 CW*, Narrow band digital (500Hz)
14080 - 14090 CW*, Narrow Band digital (500Hz)
14090 - 14099.5 CW*, Narrow band and Wide band digital(3kHz)
14099.5 - 14100.5 Beacons(3kHz)
14112 - 14350 CW*, Phone (Notes 2 & 3)(3kHz**)
14225 - 14235 CW*, Phone, SSTV, FAX(3kHz)

* Although CW is allowed everywhere in the band, normal use is regulated to 14000-14070

** Exception for DSB AM up to 8kHz)

Note (Ed): Automatic Subband must be added


So we'd have a regulation that proposes 100kHz, 500kHz, and 300kHz bandwidth segments (including AM exception) with a clear bandplan overlay that could be changed over the years as mode popularity shifted, and eventually dropped in 10years or so.
I think you would have a winner if you were to expand you narrow-band digital somewhat, Charlie. It is far more popular than you think, and it is growing swiftly. 50kHz or 55kHz would be a better portion for CW only I think.

I also believe the ARRL had a better idea with 200Hz minimum than the 100Hz you cite.

Also there is a definite need for auto/semi-auto sub-bands, and I would further sub-divide them into 500Hz and 3kHz segments to keep the packeteers separate from the wideband digital. The division could be 2.5kHz and 7.5kHz in bands that will support that much.

I also tend to think the 8kHz a bit narrow for AM, and, of course, the HiFi wobblies will howl about a 3kHz max on SSB phone.

You should put your ideas into a formal note and send it along to Henry L.

[wa4gch]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ July 19 2007,10:42)]One positive move is that they replaced "SSB" with "phone" for the voice allocations. #There ARE other modes of voice transmission, legal on the ham bands, besides SSB.
YES TRY AM ....

Waiting for 6 meter LEGECY MODES to DIE ..

[k5co]

I don't understand why everyone seems to think that the ARRL would like this plan. It does not have any provision for selling more magzines or memberships. How will that help their bonus plan?

[n4qa]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 20 2007,06:56)]If I were the ARRL, I'd adopt a modified version of this plan submitted along with the bandwidth based regulation plan.
NO!

Leave current FCC regulations intact and just have ARRL adopt the proposed Canadian bandplans for MF/HF.

Don't even say the words "regulation-by-bandwidth" to ARRL. Don't you remember the mess those words got us into in the first place?
Don't worry so much about the distant future, filled with all its exotic modes...it'll take care of itself.
Just leave HF be for now. Do what you want at VHF and up...especially if it's CW!

72.
Bill, N4QA

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n4qa @ July 20 2007,10:56)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 20 2007,06:56)]If I were the ARRL, I'd adopt a modified version of this plan submitted along with the bandwidth based regulation plan.
NO!

Leave current FCC regulations intact and just have ARRL adopt the proposed Canadian bandplans for MF/HF.

Don't even say the words "regulation-by-bandwidth" to ARRL. Don't you remember the mess those words got us into in the first place?
Don't worry so much about the distant future, filled with all its exotic modes...it'll take care of itself.
Just leave HF be for now. Do what you want at VHF and up...especially if it's CW!

72.
Bill, N4QA
What do you have to fear, Bill?

The words didn't cause the mess, Bill, it was the defective ideas behind the words that caused the mess. If the ideas are changed, the words may remain the same but carry a whole new connotation, right?

If CW is threatened by change, you will not protect it by trying for forestall all change. It would be far better to direct the changes so that all modes, especially "legacy" modes, are protected and given a chance to evolve as the majority of amateurs choose to develop them.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 19 2007,18:56)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 19 2007,16:12)]Quote[/b] (M3GID @ July 19 2007,13:05)]Jeepers!

Do you guys ever actually GO ON AIR or do you just sit and whine about things all day??!!

There are those that legislate, those that permeate, those that hesitate and those that activate, which party do you fall in??

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.....

And neither should age be a "qualifying factor" in determining what is seen to be right or wrong, I'm a young 43 years old, and I have a view too!

This world sucks!

di dah di dah dit!

dit dit

de Geoff
M0GID
Oh, give me a break.

I just finished up soldering together a softrock40 80m/40m SDR kit and came over here to the computer for some relaxation. Once I'm done I'll start on an enclosure and power supply for the unit.

There are lots of things for hams to do besides talk on the radio.-- like learning how a Tayloe detector in an SDR works.

What's the old saying about horizons?

tim ab0wr
Gotta love it. Just gotta love it. The plan has just come out, and already you've condemned the League for not being interested in it... even though you admit that there's no way that they could have evaluated it yet.

And the fellow curmudgeons are lining up right behind you in link-step head nodding agreement. And then pat youselves on the back for oh so obviously being right.

Must be nice to be accuser, arresting officer, prosecutor, jury and judge. Why bother giving them a chance? No, we already know, so let's just blast the hell out of them anyway.

Feh. I'm going back to 30 meters while the band is open.
ROFL!!

Supposedly the ARRL has had a committee looking at a bandplan for several months to go along with their new "regulatory paradigm".

They should have already found out that this plan was going to be issued and commented on it. Let's face it, if they don't coordinate directly with Canada and Mexico on a US bandplan they just plain aren't doing their job.

My guess is that they *aren't* just plain doing their job.

What are my ARRL dues supposed to get? They should be finding out about this stuff *ahead* of me, not *after* I read it on QRZ!

Some people will defend the ARRL no matter what. Those people deserve what they get.

tim ab0wr

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 20 2007,11:43)]Some people will defend the ARRL no matter what. Those people deserve what they get.
And what we get is a steady stream of ... uh, shall we just say "kvetching" from you. Why not do something really constructive for a change and volunteer to either run for elective office or do some other real work instead of here on QRZ with a fast post to bit**?

[ky5u]

I know in reality when you propose a compromise, you simply pi$$ off both sides. LOL! I should have learned that in the telegraphy testing SNAFU.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 20 2007,12:43)]Supposedly the ARRL has had a committee looking at a bandplan for several months to go along with their new "regulatory paradigm".

They should have already found out that this plan was going to be issued and commented on it. Let's face it, if they don't coordinate directly with Canada and Mexico on a US bandplan they just plain aren't doing their job.

My guess is that they *aren't* just plain doing their job.

What are my ARRL dues supposed to get? They should be finding out about this stuff *ahead* of me, not *after* I read it on QRZ!

Some people will defend the ARRL no matter what. Those people deserve what they get.

tim ab0wr
How do you know they haven't already found out about this plan? If anything, I'd think that yes, they are already aware of it.

So exactly why the slam? Because they haven't publicly commented, yet, on something that has only been publicly made available for a relatively few days?

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 20 2007,13:17)]I know in reality when you propose a compromise, you simply pi$$ off both sides. #LOL! #I should have learned that in the telegraphy testing SNAFU.
Reminds me of what a "judge" once said in a television show; to paraphrase:Quote[/b] ]I know I must be right in my ruling when neither side's lawyer is happy

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 20 2007,12:51)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 20 2007,11:43)]Some people will defend the ARRL no matter what. Those people deserve what they get.
And what we get is a steady stream of ... uh, shall we just say "kvetching" from you. Why not do something really constructive for a change and volunteer to either run for elective office or do some other real work instead of here on QRZ with a fast post to bit**?
Albert, you know the answer to that as well as I.

There are those who do.
There are those that lead by example.
There are those that teach from experience
There are those who say "c'mon guys, we can do this! Follow me!"

And then there are those who will sit back, watch, reap the benefits, and always tell you what you should have done, and why, for their benefit. They've become quite good at being a "Monday morning quarterback."

You're definitely in the first category. Ryan is. I'd like to think that I am, at least I try. As far as some of these other guys go...

73

[n4qa]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 20 2007,09:13)]What do you have to fear, Bill?
Albert,
A wise man once said to me:
"A burnt chicken dreads fire".
We of the amateur community are the chickens;
ARRL be the fire.

72.
Bill, N4QA

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n4qa @ July 20 2007,14:49)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 20 2007,09:13)]What do you have to fear, Bill?
Albert,
A wise man once said to me:
"A burnt chicken dreads fire".
We of the amateur community are the chickens;
ARRL be the fire.

72.
Bill, N4QA
Does that make Dave Sumner Colonel Sanders?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[ve7ngr]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 19 2007,11:46)]Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Cananda a party to a Bandwidth based Regulatory scheme?
No. This seems to be a common misconception among American amateurs, at least based on comments I see on QRZ.com. Our regulations state a maximum bandwidth per band, for the whole band. They say nothing about what I can do within a band. For example, most HF bands allow 6 kHz, except for 30 m (narrower) and 10 m (wider). This means I can transmit any mode and any bandwidth less than 6 kHz anywhere within the 20 m band (or 15 m, or 40 m, etc).

Our bandplans that specify what I can operate where within a band are voluntary plans that have been developed by RAC (our equivalent of ARRL). They are mode based bandplans, not bandwidth based.

This system works well for us, in my opinion.

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 19 2007,11:46)]Anyway, I opened this with a jaundiced eye given the history of IC as a wimpy organization, but I must say I was suprized.
This has nothing at all to do with IC.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ve7ngr @ July 20 2007,15:19)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 19 2007,11:46)]Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Cananda a party to a Bandwidth based Regulatory scheme?
No. This seems to be a common misconception among American amateurs, at least based on comments I see on QRZ.com. Our regulations state a maximum bandwidth per band, for the whole band. They say nothing about what I can do within a band. For example, most HF bands allow 6 kHz, except for 30 m (narrower) and 10 m (wider). This means I can transmit any mode and any bandwidth less than 6 kHz anywhere within the 20 m band (or 15 m, or 40 m, etc).

Our bandplans that specify what I can operate where within a band are voluntary plans that have been developed by RAC (our equivalent of ARRL). They are mode based bandplans, not bandwidth based.

This system works well for us, in my opinion.

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 19 2007,11:46)]Anyway, I opened this with a jaundiced eye given the history of IC as a wimpy organization, but I must say I was suprized.
This has nothing at all to do with IC.
TU for the clarification.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 20 2007,09:51)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 20 2007,11:43)]Some people will defend the ARRL no matter what. Those people deserve what they get.
And what we get is a steady stream of ... uh, shall we just say "kvetching" from you. Why not do something really constructive for a change and volunteer to either run for elective office or do some other real work instead of here on QRZ with a fast post to bit**?
How do you know I haven't already done so?

Talk about assumptions.

tim ab0wr

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 20 2007,12:08)]Quote[/b] (n4qa @ July 20 2007,14:49)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 20 2007,09:13)]What do you have to fear, Bill?
Albert,
A wise man once said to me:
"A burnt chicken dreads fire".
We of the amateur community are the chickens;
ARRL be the fire.

72.
Bill, N4QA
Does that make Dave Sumner Colonel Sanders?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Al,

I don't believe David has perfected his secret blend of 11 herbs and spices just quite yet -- he's just not that popular. You know, Col. Sanders was a fantastically successful spokesperson for KFC.

His might be up to the popularity level of George W. Church of Church's Chicken. Do you know this chicken?

73.

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (ve7ngr @ July 19 2007,13:19)]This system works well for us, in my opinion.
You are a civilized group with a benevolent regulator. Congratulations.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 20 2007,10:41)]Albert, you know the answer to that as well as I.

There are those who do.
There are those that lead by example.
There are those that teach from experience
There are those who say "c'mon guys, we can do this! Follow me!"
And there are those who are so convinced of their divinity that they would lead us all right off a cliff to prove it.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 21 2007,09:30)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 20 2007,10:41)]Albert, you know the answer to that as well as I.

There are those who do.
There are those that lead by example.
There are those that teach from experience
There are those who say "c'mon guys, we can do this! #Follow me!"
And there are those who are so convinced of their divinity that they would lead us all right off a cliff to prove it.
There are times, I suppose, when foresight may seem like divinity. But clear vision need not presuppose clairvoyance.

As Aquinas might have put it were he a ham, it is a matter of recognizing "what is," as opposed to what may be. Or what was.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I tried walking on water once, Charlie, and I damn near drowned. I had to clutch at Dave Sumner's robe to save myself.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (ve7ngr @ July 20 2007,12:19)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 19 2007,11:46)]Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Cananda a party to a Bandwidth based Regulatory scheme?
No. This seems to be a common misconception among American amateurs, at least based on comments I see on QRZ.com. Our regulations state a maximum bandwidth per band, for the whole band. They say nothing about what I can do within a band. For example, most HF bands allow 6 kHz, except for 30 m (narrower) and 10 m (wider). This means I can transmit any mode and any bandwidth less than 6 kHz anywhere within the 20 m band (or 15 m, or 40 m, etc).

Our bandplans that specify what I can operate where within a band are voluntary plans that have been developed by RAC (our equivalent of ARRL). They are mode based bandplans, not bandwidth based.

This system works well for us, in my opinion.
Well the reason I asked is because several ill informed Canadians have made statements like, "what are you Americans so afraid of? We have bandwidth based regulation here in Canada and it works great!"

You confirm what I thought. You have a maximum bandwidth with a mode based bandplan overlay.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 21 2007,06:41)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 21 2007,09:30)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 20 2007,10:41)]Albert, you know the answer to that as well as I.

There are those who do.
There are those that lead by example.
There are those that teach from experience
There are those who say "c'mon guys, we can do this! Follow me!"
And there are those who are so convinced of their divinity that they would lead us all right off a cliff to prove it.
There are times, I suppose, when foresight may seem like divinity. But clear vision need not presuppose clairvoyance.

As Aquinas might have put it were he a ham, it is a matter of recognizing "what is," as opposed to what may be. Or what was.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I tried walking on water once, Charlie, and I damn near drowned. I had to clutch at Dave Sumner's robe to save myself.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Methinks you stepped out into the alley to intercept a bullet meant for the guy behind you....

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 21 2007,09:46)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 21 2007,06:41)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 21 2007,09:30)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 20 2007,10:41)]Albert, you know the answer to that as well as I.

There are those who do.
There are those that lead by example.
There are those that teach from experience
There are those who say "c'mon guys, we can do this! #Follow me!"
And there are those who are so convinced of their divinity that they would lead us all right off a cliff to prove it.
There are times, I suppose, when foresight may seem like divinity. But clear vision need not presuppose clairvoyance.

As Aquinas might have put it were he a ham, it is a matter of recognizing "what is," as opposed to what may be. Or what was.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I tried walking on water once, Charlie, and I damn near drowned. I had to clutch at Dave Sumner's robe to save myself.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Methinks you stepped out into the alley to intercept a bullet meant for the guy behind you....
I didn't really feel that it was directed at me, Charlie, but I never could resist and opening like that. BTW, I'm dried off, now.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[kb2wye]

sounds like a plan!!!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 20 2007,10:32)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 20 2007,12:43)]Supposedly the ARRL has had a committee looking at a bandplan for several months to go along with their new "regulatory paradigm".

They should have already found out that this plan was going to be issued and commented on it. Let's face it, if they don't coordinate directly with Canada and Mexico on a US bandplan they just plain aren't doing their job.

My guess is that they *aren't* just plain doing their job.

What are my ARRL dues supposed to get? They should be finding out about this stuff *ahead* of me, not *after* I read it on QRZ!

Some people will defend the ARRL no matter what. Those people deserve what they get.

tim ab0wr
How do you know they haven't already found out about this plan? If anything, I'd think that yes, they are already aware of it.

So exactly why the slam? Because they haven't publicly commented, yet, on something that has only been publicly made available for a relatively few days?
That's exactly the reason. If they have known about it for quite a while then why did they NOT have a comment about it ready for press release the same day or the day after?

It's not like they can sit on the sidelines and play nicey-nice political games with such a thing. Sooner or later they are going to have to put something on paper to go along with their "regulatory paradigm" change.

In this case it would be best to do it *sooner* and not later. The longer they take to comment on the Canadian plan the harder it will be to convince people that the Canadian plan is NOT the way to go, assuming that they have something else in mind.

If they *do* want to follow it then the sooner they make a positive comment about wanting to use it as a template the easier it will be to get everyone on board.

The bottom line? The ARRL, as usual, is a day late and a dollar short and now they are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Seems to be a typical place for them lately.

tim ab0wr

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 21 2007,12:27)]The bottom line? The ARRL, as usual, is a day late and a dollar short and now they are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Seems to be a typical place for them lately.
More fertilizer from Kansas. They must have a surplus of horses out there. It seems to be growing into a commodity export hereabouts.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 21 2007,10:45)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 21 2007,12:27)]The bottom line? The ARRL, as usual, is a day late and a dollar short and now they are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Seems to be a typical place for them lately.
More fertilizer from Kansas. They must have a surplus of horses out there. It seems to be growing into a commodity export hereabouts.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Joel Harrison sums it up nicely in his youtube video dedicating the Diamond Terrace. He quotes a ham at Dayton who allegedly says that all he wants to do is get on the air and that the ARRL should handle everything else. That in a nutshell is the ARRL leadership mindset right from the horse's mouth. We all should just get on the air and leave the thinking to the ARRL.

[ve1jf]

Hi de VE1JF (member, Radio Amateurs of Canada HF Band Planning Committee)--

Appreciate the feedback, and we have always approached this opportunity as a chance to propose solutions for the broader ham
community. One of the concerns we are hearing from some VEs is that some of our innovations will not be supported beyond our borders. Your obvious interest and support will be remembered by our President and VP-International in upcoming Region 2 discussions on HF Band Planning.

It would be helpful logistically to our HFBP committee if those posting substantive comments about our plan or any aspect of it (whether positive or negative) would send a copy to rac.hfbpc.poll@gmail.com.

It is VERY important to read the introduction to our document for perspective on such matters as below-3600 phone (which came from elsewhere in Region 2) and expanded DX windows. This expansion has the support of some highly influential DXers in the US and Europe; the exact 25 kHz chosen on 40M is not a big deal but happens to be the only 25 kHz encompassing more than 66% of the thousands of 40M phone DX Summit spots for eleven major DXpeditions. There have also been several comments favouring 7040-7065. Anywhere we go displaces somebody from their long-established frequency. However, on-air clashes between those trying to hear rare DXpeditions and those who have used that frequency for X years have been the subjects of the most bitter exchanges I have heard involving VE hams on one or both sides.

It appears that an error got into our 10M beacon coverage, but we welcome comments on what that or anything else should be.

73,

Jim, VE1JF

[W9WHE]

AB0WR writes:

"This would be a *very* good bandplan for us to follow as well"

Now, now, now....
you know that arrl did not come up with this plan, so there is NO WAY arrl is ever going to support it. By now you should know that there is no intelligent thought, no good ideas, and nothing good that does not ORIGINATE in Newington.

Sheesh!


W9WHE

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 22 2007,10:47)]We all should just get on the air and leave the thinking to the ARRL.
You would be astonished at the number of comments to just that effect that have been received. I know I was.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 23 2007,11:15)]AB0WR writes:

"This would be a *very* good bandplan for us to follow as well"

Now, now, now....
you know that arrl did not come up with this plan, so there is NO WAY arrl is ever going to support it. By now you should know that there is no intelligent thought, no good ideas, and nothing good that does not ORIGINATE in Newington.

Sheesh!


W9WHE
How would you know?

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 23 2007,09:05)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 22 2007,10:47)]We all should just get on the air and leave the thinking to the ARRL.
You would be astonished at the number of comments to just that effect that have been received. I know I was.
This line-of-thinking, if you could call it such, does not bode well for the Amateur Service -- or the League for that matter.

[wa4gch]

Quote[/b] (ve1jf @ July 22 2007,09:14)]Hi de VE1JF (member, Radio Amateurs of Canada HF Band Planning Committee)--

Appreciate the feedback, and we have always approached this opportunity as a chance to propose solutions for the broader ham
community. #One of the concerns we are hearing from some VEs is that some of our innovations will not be supported beyond our borders. #Your obvious interest and support will be remembered by our President and VP-International in upcoming Region 2 discussions on HF Band Planning.

It would be helpful logistically to our HFBP committee if those posting substantive comments about our plan or any aspect of it (whether positive or negative) would send a copy to rac.hfbpc.poll@gmail.com.

It is VERY important to read the introduction to our document for perspective on such matters as below-3600 phone (which came from elsewhere in Region 2) and expanded DX windows. #This expansion has the support of some highly influential DXers in the US and Europe; the exact 25 kHz chosen on 40M is not a big deal but happens to be the only 25 kHz encompassing more than 66% of the thousands of 40M phone DX Summit spots for eleven major DXpeditions. #There have also been several comments favouring 7040-7065. #Anywhere we go displaces somebody from their long-established frequency. #However, on-air clashes between those trying to hear rare DXpeditions and those who have used that frequency for X years have been the subjects of the most bitter exchanges I have heard involving VE hams on one or both sides.

It appears that an error got into our 10M beacon coverage, but we welcome comments on what that or anything else should be.

73,

Jim, VE1JF
As long as it dosnt effect 40 meter CW the ARRL will not care ...... As long as it dosnt apply to 6 meters neither do I .

Boy that sounds self serving ........

Now back to DX .....

[W9WHE]

Anybody FOOLISH enough to leave "everything else" to arrl, deserves the disasterious result. I, for one, am not that foolish. arrl has demonstrated, time and time again, it does NOT care what the average ham thinks. Remember arrl's bandwith proposal?

There is a reason that a LARGE MAJORITY of hams REFUSE to join the small arrl minority.





W9WHE

[N2MMM]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 25 2007,07:45)]Anybody FOOLISH enough to leave "everything else" to arrl, deserves the disasterious result. I, for one, am not that foolish. arrl has demonstrated, time and time again, it does NOT care what the average ham thinks. Remember arrl's bandwith proposal?

There is a reason that a LARGE MAJORITY of hams REFUSE to join the small arrl minority.





W9WHE
ARRL responds to the wishes of its members. If those who are concerned about preservation of legacy modes abandon it then the ONLY identifiable national association of Amateur Radio operators and the designated US IARU affiliate will lobby for the digital minority who has come to dominate the League. There are two alternatives to those of us who want to see Legacy mode interests represented before Congress, The FCC and the IARU:

Alternative 1:
Form a new society which is dedicated to promoting the interests of legacy mode operators which will then challenge ARRL over its IARU affiliation.

Alternative 2:
Mount a recruting drive to increase the participation of legacy mode operators in the existing ARRL and work to change its policies.

Which alternative do you think has the best likelihood of success? My money would be on Alternative 2.

[ve3sre]

The RAC HF band plan has been more or less a "gentleman's agreement" for years and for the most part it gets followed.

There's some spillover during major contests and that's to be expected and it looks like the RAC HF band planning committee has taken this into account.

The big HF contests are kind of like when the parade goes through your neighbourhood...they mess up traffic for a little while...and then when it's over everything goes back to normal. The major contests are well publicized in advance and have followed the same schedule for years...so it's very easy to find out "when the parade's coming to town".

The percentage of Canadian hams who are members of RAC is probably lower than the percentage of U.S. hams who are members of the ARRL. So RAC operates on a shoestring budget and the work on things like this bandplanning committee gets done by volunteers putting their own time in.

I don't really see the hostility towards our national organization that I sometimes see towards the ARRL. Sure there are disagreements over the odd issue here and there but it's more like "friends who disagree". Maybe its because of the heavier reliance on volunteers up here.

As for the bandplan...I've just had a brief look at it and can't see anything of consequence that I'd disagree with.

73

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (N2MMM @ July 25 2007,08:34)]Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 25 2007,07:45)]Anybody FOOLISH enough to leave "everything else" to arrl, deserves the disasterious result. I, for one, am not that foolish. arrl has demonstrated, time and time again, it does NOT care what the average ham thinks. Remember arrl's bandwith proposal?

There is a reason that a LARGE MAJORITY of hams REFUSE to join the small arrl minority.





W9WHE
ARRL responds to the wishes of its members. If those who are concerned about preservation of legacy modes abandon it then the ONLY identifiable national association of Amateur Radio operators and the designated US IARU affiliate will lobby for the digital minority who has come to dominate the League. There are two alternatives to those of us who want to see Legacy mode interests represented before Congress, The FCC and the IARU:

Alternative 1:
Form a new society which is dedicated to promoting the interests of legacy mode operators which will then challenge ARRL over its IARU affiliation.

Alternative 2:
Mount a recruting drive to increase the participation of legacy mode operators in the existing ARRL and work to change its policies.

Which alternative do you think has the best likelihood of success? My money would be on Alternative 2.
The ARRL responds to the special interests in vogue at the time. They haven't responded to the members in general for a number of years. From removing power limits on spread spectrum transmissions, to putting 100khz wide data signals right in on top of the 2m repeater band, to NOT recommending that the Novice portions of the HF bands be refarmed for digital experimentation, to promoting the conversion of the amateur service into being a common carrier, they have let the general membership down all the way around.

The only ones that seem to be responding the ham population as a whole is the FCC. Woohoo! Who would have thunk it?

BTW, after the first QSO is made with any new mode then that new mode becomes a "legacy" mode as soon as a different "new" mode comes along. AOR type digital voice will be a "legacy" mode as soon as a new codec is brought to market and adopted by some amateurs.

So how do you keep the "legacy" thing defined so everyone knows what is legacy and what is not?

tim ab0wr

[wa4gch]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 25 2007,18:50)]Quote[/b] (N2MMM @ July 25 2007,08:34)]Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 25 2007,07:45)]Anybody FOOLISH enough to leave "everything else" to arrl, deserves the disasterious result. I, for one, am not that foolish. arrl has demonstrated, time and time again, it does NOT care what the average ham thinks. Remember arrl's bandwith proposal?

There is a reason that a LARGE MAJORITY of hams REFUSE to join the small arrl minority.





W9WHE
ARRL responds to the wishes of its members. If those who are concerned about preservation of legacy modes abandon it then the ONLY identifiable national association of Amateur Radio operators and the designated US IARU affiliate #will lobby for the digital minority who has come to dominate the League. There are two alternatives to those of us who want to see Legacy mode interests represented before Congress, The FCC and the IARU:

Alternative 1:
Form a new society which is dedicated to promoting the interests of legacy mode operators which will then challenge ARRL over its IARU affiliation.

Alternative 2:
Mount a recruting drive to increase the participation of legacy mode operators in the existing ARRL and work to change its policies.

Which alternative do you think has the best likelihood of success? My money would be on Alternative 2.
The ARRL responds to the special interests in vogue at the time. They haven't responded to the members in general for a number of years. From removing power limits on spread spectrum transmissions, to putting 100khz wide data signals right in on top of the 2m repeater band, to NOT recommending that the Novice portions of the HF bands be refarmed for digital experimentation, to promoting the conversion of the amateur service into being a common carrier, they have let the general membership down all the way around.

The only ones that seem to be responding the ham population as a whole is the FCC. Woohoo! Who would have thunk it?

BTW, after the first QSO is made with any new mode then that new mode becomes a "legacy" mode as soon as a different "new" mode comes along. AOR type digital voice will be a "legacy" mode as soon as a new codec is brought to market and adopted by some amateurs.

So how do you keep the "legacy" thing defined so everyone knows what is legacy and what is not?

tim ab0wr
YOU GOT THAT RIGHT !

Defending 6 meters from the digital invaiders .....

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 25 2007,10:45)]Anybody FOOLISH enough to leave "everything else" to arrl, deserves the disasterious result. I, for one, am not that foolish. arrl has demonstrated, time and time again, it does NOT care what the average ham thinks. Remember arrl's bandwith proposal?

There is a reason that a LARGE MAJORITY of hams REFUSE to join the small arrl minority.





W9WHE
The reason many hams "refuse" to join the ARRL is the simple fact that it is easy to sit back and let others do the heavy lifting for you.

Membership is growing swiftly. Many newly licensed hams, as well as many recent upgrades, recognize the simple fact that we need a strong national organization to represent our interests, and they are putting their memberships to work in that cause.

Nothing stands still. Time, attitudes and policies change if one is willing to grab the line and pull along with everyone else. Of course, it is easier to sit back and bitch about everything everyone else is doing in an effort to make one's own minority viewpoint look more important than it is in fact.

You may continue to post your anti-ARRL rhetoric with my very best wishes. We will continue to work for positive change. We will win in the end because we have the better mission.

73

[W9WHE]

W3MIV writes:

"The reason many hams "refuse" to join the ARRL is the simple fact that it is easy to sit back and let others do the heavy lifting for you"

No. The reason SO MANY HAMS REFUSE to join is arrl ARROGANCE.
arrl does NOT care what the average ham thinks and the average ham is loathe to support an organization that, so often, spits in the face if its own dues paying members.

++++++++++++++


"Membership is growing swiftly"

Where do you get this from?
arrl's own statistics DO NOT bear this out. I would like to see your statistics.


++++++++++++++++

"Many newly licensed hams, as well as many recent upgrades, recognize the simple fact that we need a strong national organization to represent our interests........."

You are right. We do need one. UNFORTUNATELY, arrl is, by and large, IMPOTENT on key issues and has little meaningful influence on the regulators. In fact, 2/3 of responding hams think arrl has little or no meaningful influence on the Feds.

http://www.eham.net/survey/720

One need only look to FCC's response to arrl's "demands" that FCC shut down BPL systems to understand that arrl is, by and large, IMPOTENT on key issues. arrl can't get the antenna bill passed, arrl can't get the spectrum bill passed and arrl can't get BPL systems shut down. arrl could not even prevent the loss of a large swath of 220 Mhz to UPS, for a system that never even materialized! #

Moreover, YOUR arrl makes a point of PERSONALLY antogonizing and PERSONALLY insulting the FCC commissioners that hold COMPLETE sway over our licenses. And you criticize the MAJORITY that REFUSE to be a member? GO FIGURE.



W9WHE

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 26 2007,11:15)]W3MIV writes:

"The reason many hams "refuse" to join the ARRL is the simple fact that it is easy to sit back and let others do the heavy lifting for you"

No. The reason SO MANY HAMS REFUSE to join is arrl ARROGANCE.
++++++++++++++








W9WHE
Amusing that you, of all posters, would condemn anyone on the basis of arrogance.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Quote[/b] ]
arrl does NOT care what the average ham thinks and the average ham is loathe to support an organization that, so often, spits in the face if its own dues paying members.


I care. I am deeply offended by your insensitive attack upon my feelings.

Quote[/b] ]"Membership is growing swiftly"

Where do you get this from?
arrl's own statistics DO NOT bear this out. I would like to see your statistics.


How would you know? Do you have access to the statistics you reference? I don't think so. I would be willing to bet that this is just another cry in the dark from a jilted ham who would like to appear more significant in the scheme of things than, in fact, he is.

Quote[/b] ]++++++++++++++++
"Many newly licensed hams, as well as many recent upgrades, recognize the simple fact that we need a strong national organization to represent our interests........."

You are right. We do need one. UNFORTUNATELY, arrl is, by and large, IMPOTENT on key issues and has little meaningful influence on the regulators. In fact, 2/3 of responding hams think arrl has little or no meaningful influence on the Feds.


http://www.eham.net/survey/720


Your "survey" is a joke, not an accurate measure and objective measure. It is easy to vote more than once, and the very question is posed so as to solicit a negative response.

Back to square one. Learn how to conduct a real survey, in a different venue, with objective questions, and do it in a manner that prevents manipulation and you may find answers you won't like.

Quote[/b] ]One need only look to FCC's response to arrl's "demands" that FCC shut down BPL systems to understand that arrl is, by and large, IMPOTENT on key issues. arrl can't get the antenna bill passed, arrl can't get the spectrum bill passed and arrl can't get BPL systems shut down. arrl could not even prevent the loss of a large swath of 220 Mhz to UPS, for a system that never even materialized!

Moreover, YOUR arrl makes a point of PERSONALLY antogonizing and PERSONALLY insulting the FCC commissioners that hold COMPLETE sway over our licenses. And you criticize the MAJORITY that REFUSE to be a member? GO FIGURE.


You're right, the ARRL could do none of those tasks you insist, beyond any measure of reason, were doable by anyone. But you fail to tell the whole story, which is not surprising since that tale is one that refutes your theories utterly.

The only few that it would seem that the ARRL is "personally antagonizing" hang about on a few internet forums, clustering for mutual support, and whining about their perceptions of all that is wrong with the League. Meanwhile, we are building something new and positive...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[W9WHE]

W3MIV claims:
"[arrl] Membership is growing swiftly"


W9WHE responds:
"Where do you get this from?
arrl's own statistics DO NOT bear this out. I would like to see your statistics.


W3MIV replies:
"How would you know? Do you have access to the statistics you reference? I don't think so.

WRONG. I do have access to arrl statistics. Do YOU?
How can arrl membership be "growing swiftly" when it went from 148,887 to 148,641?



+++++++++++++++++++++++++


W9WHE pointed to the EHam survey demonstrating that 67% of respondents think arrl has little or no meaningful influence with the feds.

http://www.eham.net/survey/720


W3MIV then wrote:
Your "survey" is a joke, not an accurate measure and objective measure. It is easy to vote more than once, and the very question is posed so as to solicit a negative response"


WRONG AGAIN.
You can only vote once on a E Ham survey. Second, what is your basis to suggest that the survey is not accurate? Let me guess, you don't like the result. Typical.

WHY DO SO MANY ARRL SUPPORTERS JUST MAKE UP FACTS?
WHY IS CRITICIZUM OF arrl "VERBOTEN"http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

W9WHE

[n4qa]

Someone in this thread said something about 'influential hams' or dxers or whatever favoring phone below 7100 on 40m and below 3600 KHz on 80m.

Yeah right!

Recent FCC spectrum giveaways to phone ops weren't enough? Grab, grab, grab!

No, keep all of your phone racket above 3600 and above 7125... at least!

And, go as wide as you want above 50.5 MHz.
But, not below...

72.
Bill, N4QA

[wa4gch]

Quote[/b] (n4qa @ July 27 2007,10:46)]Someone in this thread said something about 'influential hams' or dxers or whatever favoring phone below 7100 on 40m and below 3600 KHz on 80m.

Yeah right!

Recent FCC spectrum giveaways to phone ops weren't enough? Grab, grab, grab!

No, keep all of your phone racket above 3600 and above 7125... at least!

And, go as wide as you want above 50.5 MHz.
But, not below...

72.
Bill, N4QA
BILL ......

WIDEBAND DIGITAL IS LEAGAL ABOVE 219 MHZ .....

If you dont want to see it from 3.500 - 4.000 MHZ you better keep it that way....

ANY MOVE TO PLACE IT ON 6 METERS WILL ONLY BE THE FIRST STEP .....

You can bet one year after its on 6 they will bo back to wanting the entire band and a slice of 10 meters too....

THEN since it is working so well they will push for the rest ........

Just ASK THEM .......

And if they say it is not true THINK bandwidth not mode band planning ..... it will happen backed by the ARRL .....

Sunday the bands were E-Skiping all the way up to 222 mhz 2 meters was open to 15 states from Florida and 6 was open for 12 hours...... With my beam out of order and using a ringo I worked 5 station around St. Louis from TAMPABAY on 144.200 SSB..

How would this sound with 100's of 100 khz wide stations #running a gallon each http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?

It was bad enough with thousands of SSB/CW guys on there...... and a few AM'ers tossed in at 50.400.

Bruce

On 6 since 66

[W9WHE]

W3MIV writes:
You're right, the ARRL could do none of those tasks you insist [antenna bill, etc] , beyond any measure of reason, were doable by anyone.".

WRONG AGAIN.
While arrl lacks the potency to obtain antenna protections for hams, there are a number of states (23 at my last count) that have passed antenna protection laws largely through NON arrl efforts. THUS, not only are such things "doable" they are being acomplished without the impotent arrl. Where arrl has failed over and over, ordinary hams have been successful. I believe that ordinary hams can be MORE successful without arrl, because they do not have to contend with arrl management's childish inflammitory personal insults.

W9WHE

[ab8yy]

Quote[/b] (N2MMM @ July 25 2007,04:34)]Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 25 2007,07:45)]Anybody FOOLISH enough to leave "everything else" to arrl, deserves the disasterious result. I, for one, am not that foolish. arrl has demonstrated, time and time again, it does NOT care what the average ham thinks. Remember arrl's bandwith proposal?

There is a reason that a LARGE MAJORITY of hams REFUSE to join the small arrl minority.





W9WHE
ARRL responds to the wishes of its members. If those who are concerned about preservation of legacy modes abandon it then the ONLY identifiable national association of Amateur Radio operators and the designated US IARU affiliate #will lobby for the digital minority who has come to dominate the League. There are two alternatives to those of us who want to see Legacy mode interests represented before Congress, The FCC and the IARU:

Alternative 1:
Form a new society which is dedicated to promoting the interests of legacy mode operators which will then challenge ARRL over its IARU affiliation.

Alternative 2:
Mount a recruting drive to increase the participation of legacy mode operators in the existing ARRL and work to change its policies.

Which alternative do you think has the best likelihood of success? My money would be on Alternative 2.
That would be great, but from what I have heard and read, the ARRL does neither listen to its complete membership, nor pay any attention to them. Again, this most recent proposal has proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Belonging to an organization claiming to represent me and then turning their back on me does not make me want to support nor give them money. If the ARRL cared, they would listen to, work for, and represent their membership. They would also pay some attention to the rest ofthe ham population who are not members in hopes that they may show the rest of us that they are worthy of us joining. Telling us to join an organization who doesn't do anything good for us is like saying that we should just give all of our extra money to a dead person in hopes they will tell God what a great person we are. This simply doesn't fly with me and obviously many others here.

If, on the other hand, the ARRL began to show that belonging to them was something we could do and count on their support, then many more would be joining and rejoining - including myself. Until them, I'll just watch them try to kill off amateur radio as we know it and continue to file comments against their stupid ideas with the FCC and on here.

Steve
AB8YY

[ab8yy]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 26 2007,01:52)]Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 25 2007,10:45)]Anybody FOOLISH enough to leave "everything else" to arrl, deserves the disasterious result. I, for one, am not that foolish. arrl has demonstrated, time and time again, it does NOT care what the average ham thinks. Remember arrl's bandwith proposal?

There is a reason that a LARGE MAJORITY of hams REFUSE to join the small arrl minority.





W9WHE
The reason many hams "refuse" to join the ARRL is the simple fact that it is easy to sit back and let others do the heavy lifting for you.

Membership is growing swiftly. Many newly licensed hams, as well as many recent upgrades, recognize the simple fact that we need a strong national organization to represent our interests, and they are putting their memberships to work in that cause.

Nothing stands still. Time, attitudes and policies change if one is willing to grab the line and pull along with everyone else. Of course, it is easier to sit back and bitch about everything everyone else is doing in an effort to make one's own minority viewpoint look more important than it is in fact.

You may continue to post your anti-ARRL rhetoric with my very best wishes. We will continue to work for positive change. We will win in the end because we have the better mission.

73
For the very reasons mentioned in other posts, the ARRL is NOT promoting positive moves in amateur radio - rather just the opposite. We do NOT need a radio version of the internet.

As for the newcomers and new upgrades joining - thats only because they know no difference, and every single person that gets licensed and/or upgraded receives an offer of free merchandise if they join now. This doesn't mean that after the first year they will not let the membership go without renewal like many of the rest of us has done. when the ARRL steps up to the bat and starts defending AR as the majority want it and stops giving into the ones with the most money behind them, then the ARRL will no longer seem like a giant political arena and I will be willing to renew my membership. Until that time, they can kiss my a$$ for yet another year. The ARRL has done more harm than good in the past few years for amateur radio - this need sto change, and I can tell you - a few lone hams won't change it just by adding more money to their treasury nor will the newbies ever get elected to an office - unless there is a need which cannot be filled.

Steve

[ab8yy]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 26 2007,04:46)]Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 26 2007,11:15)]W3MIV writes:

"The reason many hams "refuse" to join the ARRL is the simple fact that it is easy to sit back and let others do the heavy lifting for you"

No. The reason SO MANY HAMS REFUSE to join is arrl ARROGANCE.
++++++++++++++








W9WHE
Amusing that you, of all posters, would condemn anyone on the basis of arrogance.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Quote[/b] ]
arrl does NOT care what the average ham thinks and the average ham is loathe to support an organization that, so often, spits in the face if its own dues paying members.


I care. I am deeply offended by your insensitive attack upon my feelings.

Quote[/b] ]"Membership is growing swiftly"

Where do you get this from?
arrl's own statistics DO NOT bear this out. I would like to see your statistics.


How would you know? Do you have access to the statistics you reference? I don't think so. I would be willing to bet that this is just another cry in the dark from a jilted ham who would like to appear more significant in the scheme of things than, in fact, he is.

Quote[/b] ]++++++++++++++++
"Many newly licensed hams, as well as many recent upgrades, recognize the simple fact that we need a strong national organization to represent our interests........."

You are right. We do need one. UNFORTUNATELY, arrl is, by and large, IMPOTENT on key issues and has little meaningful influence on the regulators. In fact, 2/3 of responding hams think arrl has little or no meaningful influence on the Feds.


http://www.eham.net/survey/720


Your "survey" is a joke, not an accurate measure and objective measure. It is easy to vote more than once, and the very question is posed so as to solicit a negative response.

Back to square one. Learn how to conduct a real survey, in a different venue, with objective questions, and do it in a manner that prevents manipulation and you may find answers you won't like.

Quote[/b] ]One need only look to FCC's response to arrl's "demands" that FCC shut down BPL systems to understand that arrl is, by and large, IMPOTENT on key issues. arrl can't get the antenna bill passed, arrl can't get the spectrum bill passed and arrl can't get BPL systems shut down. arrl could not even prevent the loss of a large swath of 220 Mhz to UPS, for a system that never even materialized! #

Moreover, YOUR arrl makes a point of PERSONALLY antogonizing and PERSONALLY insulting the FCC commissioners that hold COMPLETE sway over our licenses. And you criticize the MAJORITY that REFUSE to be a member? GO FIGURE.


You're right, the ARRL could do none of those tasks you insist, beyond any measure of reason, were doable by anyone. But you fail to tell the whole story, which is not surprising since that tale is one that refutes your theories utterly.

The only few that it would seem that the ARRL is "personally antagonizing" hang about on a few internet forums, clustering for mutual support, and whining about their perceptions of all that is wrong with the League. Meanwhile, we are building something new and positive...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
You appear to be "THE" arrl from your response. I want to know what "Meanwhile, we are building something new and positive..." this means? What new and positive something are YOUR and/or the ARRL building? The ARRL is constantly taking away from amateur radio! The ARRL needs to get back to representing RADIO and not EMAIL and the INTERNET. They constantly claim to be the representation of amateur radio as a whole - they are NOT, in fact, they represent very few of us and unfortunatly for those few, they are not doing a very good job.

They are spending money money and more money fighting and submitting proposals that they KNOW won't be won in the first place. I don't want my money going to something like that - I want my money going to sometihng that will help me and my fellow operators. Like getting that internet email off of AR and on the commercial bands where it belongs. AR is not for this purpose - especially the way it is being used. AR is not for the purpose of forcing legacy modes off the air to make room for an internet/digital revolution. If this happens it will happen in it's own time and we don't need the ARRL taking money from manufacturers and supporters to push this on us any faster. Espeically at the expense of other hams who don't want it.

Steve