View Full Version : ARRL on defensive over IARU Region II "band plan"
Let the "hair pull" begin!!!
Linky (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/12/07/100/?nc=1)
Quote[/b] ]ARRL has conducted an open process of soliciting input regarding matters of importance to the Amateur Radio Service. That will continue prior to the submission of any proposals for future regulatory changes to improve the Amateur Radio Service.
Now that statement rivals the biggest bunch of BS I've ever seen...
W3MIV
12-07-2007, 03:15 PM
Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Dec. 07 2007,10:42)]Quote[/b] ]ARRL has conducted an open process of soliciting input regarding matters of importance to the Amateur Radio Service. That will continue prior to the submission of any proposals for future regulatory changes to improve the Amateur Radio Service.
Now that statement rivals the biggest bunch of BS I've ever seen...
While I share your sentiments, I would not characterize them in the same way.
This web announcement is clearly a statement with "staff" origins, and it is a good example of just why input needs to be directed to the individual Directors as well as to any focus groups or committees within the League bureaucracy.
The tail dearly loves to wag the dog as much as it can, but a proactive membership offering clear and forceful (yet polite) guidance to the Directors is of far greater importance than any emails to any other addresses in Newington, including these "input" addresses (which, incidentally, seem to lose emails all too easily). It is, after all, the BOD in which all authority rests -- not the staff, not Harrison, not the CEO or COO and certainly NOT the CTO.
The announcement itself is, indeed, too defensive. It is a reaction to the hysteria and misinformation being stirred up by a few very vocal hams with an agenda. If pressure is brought to bear, that pressure should be from the affected amateurs in other areas of Region II, and it should be focused on the members of the IARU HF Committee and the executives of the IARU for Region II.
w3dub
12-07-2007, 03:29 PM
Could somebody give me some backgrounder on this.. I'm a little lost.
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 07 2007,09:15)]Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Dec. 07 2007,10:42)]Quote[/b] ]ARRL has conducted an open process of soliciting input regarding matters of importance to the Amateur Radio Service. That will continue prior to the submission of any proposals for future regulatory changes to improve the Amateur Radio Service.
Now that statement rivals the biggest bunch of BS I've ever seen...
While I share your sentiments, I would not characterize them in the same way.
This web announcement is clearly a statement with "staff" origins, and it is a good example of just why input needs to be directed to the individual Directors as well as to any focus groups or committees within the League bureaucracy.
The tail dearly loves to wag the dog as much as it can, but a proactive membership offering clear and forceful (yet polite) guidance to the Directors is of far greater importance than any emails to any other addresses in Newington, including these "input" addresses (which, incidentally, seem to lose emails all too easily). It is, after all, the BOD in which all authority rests -- not the staff, not Harrison, not the CEO or COO and certainly NOT the CTO.
The announcement itself is, indeed, too defensive. It is a reaction to the hysteria and misinformation being stirred up by a few very vocal hams with an agenda. If pressure is brought to bear, that pressure should be from the affected amateurs in other areas of Region II, and it should be focused on the members of the IARU HF Committee and the executives of the IARU for Region II.
Albert,
I follow you. The issue I have is they can say the quoted line all they want -- it doesn't make it true. That's the crux of the matter. I've defended the ARRL many times, but it's hard to defend the undefendable.
I've stated my case to directors and am what I consider to be friends with the former ARRL President. I actually agree with most of their plan, but a couple of their "gotchas" are major sticking points and that MUST be worked out. I have ideas on how it can be done (which have been communicated up the chain), but I must say that when I got an email threatening a law suit from an ARRL SM, that was beginning of my slide down the slippery slope into ARRL cynicism. I'm not going into details, but I assure you, it's real.
They need to earn my trust & membership again, and these closed-door sessions and behind the scenes deals with the FCC aren't the way to do it, all the while claiming it to be an "open process".
Joe, N3JI
WA0LYK
12-07-2007, 04:22 PM
What a joke!!!!
If they really wanted to quell the so called "rumors" they would have spelled out in detail who, what, and how the maximum bandwidth figure got put into the bandplan.
There really is no justification for including a bandwidth limit in a "bandplan". Modes by themselves have implied bandwidths and this would have been sufficient. In addition, by including no technical details about how the bandwidth would be measured means it is worthless from an enforcement perspective.
My guess is that the ARRL representatives had a major impact (the who) in getting this included. They probably also had a major impact in "setting" the limit (the what). They also need to tell folks who voted "yes" to include the bandwidth limit and who voted "no" (the how).
Lastly, I didn't see a promise that the ARRL wouldn't use the IARU bandplan as reference in any future bandwidth petition to the FCC. If they don't agree with it, this wouldn't be big deal to promise the membership!
I doubt we'll ever see any of this from the ARRL.
Jim
WA0LYK
ab0wr
12-07-2007, 04:24 PM
n3jiQuote[/b] ]Albert,
I follow you. The issue I have is they can say the quoted line all they want -- it doesn't make it true. That's the crux of the matter. I've defended the ARRL many times, but it's hard to defend the undefendable.
I've stated my case to directors and am what I consider to be friends with the former ARRL President. I actually agree with most of their plan, but a couple of their "gotchas" are major sticking points and they MUST be worked out. I have ideas on how it can be done (which have been communicated up the chain), but I must say that when I got an email threatening a law suit from an ARRL SM, that was beginning of my slide down the slippery slope into ARRL cynicism. I'm not going into details, but I assure you, it's real and was the final straw.
They need to earn my trust & membership again, and these closed-door sessions and behind the scenes deals with the FCC aren't the way to do it, all the while claiming it to be an "open process".
Joe, you are not alone. I have been watching the ARRL for over twenty years spiraling down further and further into the morass. The last five years the speed of the fall has picked up. It took quite a bit to convince me that the only thing that will change the ARRL is to defund it until they have a significant emotional event that will force an evaluation of worldview.
People like Albert keep telling me the ARRL does good things but I never get any specifics except that they publish good books. Hardly a reason to fund their other operations.
Their pitiful defense on this subject never once, NEVER ONCE mentions *any* efforts they made as the US representative to the IARU to actually prevent the bandwidth limitations from being implemented in the committee. This, just a few months after being roundly trounced for exactly the same proposals.
In other words, they were either exactly useless in presenting the views of the US amateur population as our IARU representive or they were, in fact, in tacit agreement with the proposal and by an act of omission (i.e. no active lobbying) allowed it to pass.
In any case, as the IARU representative for the entire US amateur population and not just for ARRL members, the ARRL had an obligation to the US amateur population. They failed, and failed utterly, in meeting their obligation.
They deserve to be taken to task over this. Their defense that the Region 2 plan now matches the Region 1 plan is no defense at all. The plans do not *have* to match, not if the wishes of the majority of the hams in the region feel differently. The most damning evidence is still the fact that the ARRL apparently did NOTHING to represent the views of the US amateur population. Thre is NO defense possible for that.
Telling the BOD this will be an utter waste of time. The BOD knew all this after the RM-11306 fiasco and should have held the ARRL IARU representatives responsible for meeting their obligation to the US amateur population. The fact that the BOD has done nothing to date to publicaly discipline those ARRL IARU representatives for failing to meet their obligations is proof positive that no such discipline will be forthcoming.
It is just one more damning episode in the case being built to show how morally bankrupt the ARRL leadership is today.
tim ab0wr
N8UZE
12-07-2007, 04:43 PM
You know this has already been addressed several times. What is the point of yet another thread. You guys are a day late and a dollar short.
My guess is that this says the muzzle is on Mr. Rinaldo. With some help, I was able to track down who witnessed his statements at the IARU and passed it on to my Director. It countered the claim "I ain't said nothing!"
Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ Dec. 07 2007,09:43)]You know this has already been addressed several times. What is the point of yet another thread. You guys are a day late and a dollar short.
Try clicking that "X" in the upper right hand corner of this window if you don't approve.
KB1KIX
12-07-2007, 04:48 PM
Here's a link to the proposed bandplan.
PDF Link (http://www.iaru-r2.org/documents/explorer/files/Plan%20de%20bandas%20%7C%20Band-plan/IARU%20Region%202%20HF%20band%20plan%20valid%20fro m%20January%202008.pdf)
It is a PDF, so you might want to save the document.
Jonathan
Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ Dec. 07 2007,10:43)]You know this has already been addressed several times. What is the point of yet another thread. You guys are a day late and a dollar short.
How could it have been? This statement just came out today. I agree that the general premise has been beaten, but this particular thread is about the ARRL's statement TODAY.
N8UZE
12-07-2007, 05:01 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 07 2007,11:48)]Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ Dec. 07 2007,09:43)]You know this has already been addressed several times. #What is the point of yet another thread. #You guys are a day late and a dollar short.
Try clicking that "X" in the upper right hand corner of this window if you don't approve.
I'm trying to point out to people that if they want to try to have an impact, they need to stay on top of the news and, in this case, make their input when the band plan came out not now when the ARRL is attempting to address their attackers. Since the band plan was made public weeks ago, attacking this late ARRL news article simply won't accomplish anything.
N8UZE
12-07-2007, 05:02 PM
Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Dec. 07 2007,11:55)]Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ Dec. 07 2007,10:43)]You know this has already been addressed several times. #What is the point of yet another thread. #You guys are a day late and a dollar short.
How could it have been? #This statement just came out today. #I agree that the general premise has been beaten, but this particular thread is about the ARRL's statement TODAY.
Since today's statement is simply reactionary, it's rather meaningless. The subject of the band plan itself is old news by now. Today's statement doesn't make it any fresher.
Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ Dec. 07 2007,09:43)]You know this has already been addressed several times. #What is the point of yet another thread. #You guys are a day late and a dollar short.
We're discussing the ARRL's press release/statement which came out this morning (about 3 hours ago), as well as the tone of it.
Clearly there is a developing consensus that the ARRL (again) feels backed into a corner and is lashing out via its press releases.
I don't know where else on QRZ the League's statement has been discussed.
Do you have some type of precognative ability that you haven't told us about?
k5okc
12-07-2007, 05:09 PM
Quote[/b] (KB3JGU @ Dec. 07 2007,10:29)]Could somebody give me some backgrounder on this.. I'm a little lost.
Sure. #The ARRL proposed to the FCC to change the allocation of modes in each band to a bandwidth plan (small bandwidth signals at one end of the band, and large bandwidth signals at the other end of the band).
RM-11306 was issued for comments by the FCC.
The Amateurs replied by disapproving numbers (much like they did concerning the no-code license proposal) and the ARRL asked the FCC to cancel the proposal, which they did.
By the way, the result of the Amateurs disapproving No-Code, was the loss of 220 MHz frequencies to Land Mobile Radio. #The ARRL saw the FCC as serious about the matter, and proposed a No-Code which is what we had just before code was completely dropped. #The ARRL was afraid more bands would be pulled due to lack of use (2m, 70cm, and 900 MHz).
After pulling the RM, the ARRL put the essential gist of RM-11306 into the IARU rules, which the FCC will probably adopt. #The IARU has small bandwidth signals at one end, and large bandwidth signals at the other end).
Personally I favor the IARU and ARRL plan. #It's the only plan that makes sense in the digital 21st Century.
BTW, here's the text of the first press release. #They have been known to have changed them after folks complain...
And, its interesting to note, that the release has already been pulled from the main web page!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Misleading and Incorrect Rumors Surround IARU Region 2 Band Plan
Misleading and incorrect rumors are surrounding the recently revised band plan of IARU Region 2, adopted at its triennial conference in Brazil in September. The following statement was authorized by ARRL President Joel Harrison, W5ZN.
During the conference, held September 10-14 in Brasilia, representatives from IARU Region 2 societies met in committees prior to a final plenary session and adopted recommendations concerning a number of items important to Amateur Radio in the region. These included plans to improve emergency communication, enhance education and reduce interference to national emergency nets, as well as revising the Region 2 HF band plan.
The revised Region 2 band plan for 160-10 meters takes effect January 1, 2008. The band plan is based on the band plan adopted by IARU Region 1 at its conference in Davos, Switzerland in September 2005.
IARU regional band plans have been in existence for many years. They are developed, reviewed and approved at regional conferences of the IARU Member-Societies. The band plans provide voluntary guidelines and recommendations for good operating practice that are intended to assist amateurs in making the most effective use of our limited frequency allocations. They are not restrictions and carry no regulatory authority.
Unlike the US, where the FCC's Part 97 rules regulate the frequencies allocated to the Amateur Radio Service by emission designator, many countries do not have government-regulated sub-bands within their amateur allocation. Because of this, the national Amateur Radio societies in these countries look to a band plan to provide guidance for the location of operating preferences. In such cases, these countries are urged to promote incorporation or recognition of a band plan into their regulations. In the United States, however, ARRL's band plans will continue to provide guidance for recommended operating preferences including the 160 meter band plan that was revised in 2001 on the basis of membership input.
One virtue of voluntary band plans is that they are more flexible and can be amended more easily than the FCC rules; writing them into the rules would be counterproductive. As voluntary guidelines, the band plan cannot by definition be "more severe" than regulations; however, if the band plan did not suggest an operating pattern that is a subset of the regulations, it would serve no purpose.
There is also a mistaken assumption that the new IARU Region 2 band plan is an ARRL initiative seeking regulation by bandwidth. It is not, nor is it in any way a vehicle to achieve regulation by bandwidth.
It happens that the ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" petition, the now-withdrawn RM-11306, also drew on the Region 1 band plan. This is acknowledged on page 10 of the petition. The similarities between RM-11306 and the Region 2 band plan are the result of having some common roots, but the two are not otherwise related.
While a number of Amateur Radio organizations and publishers support and agree with the ARRL on the concept of regulation by bandwidth as an essential element to the orderly introduction of new digital modes into the HF bands, ARRL will not be pursuing a rulemaking until some degree of consensus can be achieved in the amateur community.
ARRL has conducted an open process of soliciting input regarding matters of importance to the Amateur Radio Service. That will continue prior to the submission of any proposals for future regulatory changes to improve the Amateur Radio Service.
As one of the 39 Member-Societies of IARU Region 2, the ARRL will, as always, continue to openly work to improve the Region 2 band planning process prior to the next conference and give its members ample opportunity to offer comments and suggestions. Members may provide input to their elected representative (identified on page 15 of QST), or to our Ad-hoc Band Plan Committee and e-mail address that was established in 2006 at bandplan@arrl.org.
Quote[/b] (KB3JGU @ Dec. 07 2007,10:29)]Could somebody give me some backgrounder on this.. I'm a little lost.
Don't even bother.
Being lost is best for you at this point.
W3MIV
12-07-2007, 05:14 PM
Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Dec. 07 2007,11:40)]I've stated my case to directors and am what I consider to be friends with the former ARRL President. #I actually agree with most of their plan, but a couple of their "gotchas" are major sticking points and that MUST be worked out. #I have ideas on how it can be done (which have been communicated up the chain), but I must say that when I got an email threatening a law suit from an ARRL SM, that was beginning of my slide down the slippery slope into ARRL cynicism. #I'm not going into details, but I assure you, it's real.
I don't quite understand how an SM (or anyone else) could sue you over making recommendations, Joe. You have valuable knowledge and experience, and your ideas should be sent to the BOD for their edification.
For the record, SMs have no authority beyond that granted by the Board -- that's the case for the entire ARRL organization -- and no SM can inititate any suit on behalf of the ARRL. That the BOD has been remiss in meeting its obligations for management and oversight is an issue that needs to be addressed, and only members acting in good faith can turn that around.
I fully understand the cynicism, but I refuse to give in to it. I tire of hearing (reading?) the same, tired old BS from the same, tired old BSers here on QRZ. Unless we fight (and not just bitch on internet sites) NOTHING will change.
Heh, the article is now back.
k5okc
12-07-2007, 05:41 PM
They pulled it off "Attention All Amateurs..." again. Article is still there though.
N8UZE
12-07-2007, 06:03 PM
Quote[/b] (NN3W @ Dec. 07 2007,12:04)]Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ Dec. 07 2007,09:43)]You know this has already been addressed several times. #What is the point of yet another thread. #You guys are a day late and a dollar short.
We're discussing the ARRL's press release/statement which came out this morning (about 3 hours ago), as well as the tone of it.
Clearly there is a developing consensus that the ARRL (again) feels backed into a corner and is lashing out via its press releases. #
I don't know where else on QRZ the League's statement has been discussed.
Do you have some type of precognative ability that you haven't told us about?
As I stated, this press release is merely reactionary and adds nothing new to what they had stated in previous releases. Thus it is rather inconsequential when the real issue is the band plan itself.
wa3vjb
12-07-2007, 06:06 PM
Hold my place here.
Never mind.
I have posted what I had to say under the news section, beneath the ARRL's "defense."
wa3vjb
12-07-2007, 06:08 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Dec. 06 2007,10:46)]My guess is that this says the muzzle is on Mr. Rinaldo. With some help, I was able to track down who witnessed his statements at the IARU and passed it on to my Director. It countered the claim "I ain't said nothing!"
Muzzle? Hell, he hasn't said a thing publicly !!!
Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ Dec. 07 2007,11:03)]Quote[/b] (NN3W @ Dec. 07 2007,12:04)]Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ Dec. 07 2007,09:43)]You know this has already been addressed several times. #What is the point of yet another thread. #You guys are a day late and a dollar short.
We're discussing the ARRL's press release/statement which came out this morning (about 3 hours ago), as well as the tone of it.
Clearly there is a developing consensus that the ARRL (again) feels backed into a corner and is lashing out via its press releases. #
I don't know where else on QRZ the League's statement has been discussed.
Do you have some type of precognative ability that you haven't told us about?
As I stated, this press release is merely reactionary and adds nothing new to what they had stated in previous releases. #Thus it is rather inconsequential when the real issue is the band plan itself.
No, actually, part of the discussion is the fact that for the second time, the ARRL has decided to put onto its website a release which, in effect, says that everyone out there in the amateur community is stupid and that "we {the League} know what we're doing." #When they did their press release on the withdrawal of RM-11306, they basically blamed the amateur community for not "understanding" the proposal and for hindering the ARRL's ability to have the proposal go to a vote.
Here, the League is basically saying, again, that the amateur community is stupid, and that the League knows how things should be done. #The League even chides those who have opposed the means by which the RM and the IARU process was undertaken by claiminging that everything was done totally in the open and with full disclosure.
Given that I work here in Washington D.C. and do a lot of lobbying before federal agencies, Congress, and the White House, I've seen and written a lot of press releases. THESE press releases are horribly written, serve only to engender further distrust, and are NOT the methods a membership organization needs to do business.
Whomever wrote this and the other release. #Be it Alan Pitts, Dave Sumner, Paul Rinaldo - they need to be replaced.
W3MIV
12-07-2007, 06:27 PM
Quote[/b] (NN3W @ Dec. 07 2007,14:21)]...these press releases are horribly written, serve only to engender further distrust, and are NOT the methods a membership organization needs to do business.
Whomever wrote this and the other release. #Be it Alan Pitts, Dave Sumner, Paul Rinaldo - they need to be replaced.
You'll get no argument from me on that score.
N5PVL
12-07-2007, 06:29 PM
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN !
W3MIV
12-07-2007, 06:46 PM
Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 07 2007,14:29)]PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN !
Don't worry. We rarely listen to your rants.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 07 2007,06:46)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 07 2007,14:29)]PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN !
Don't worry. We rarely listen to your rants.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
W3MIV just made my Christmas card list!
Scott NØIU
wa6itf
12-07-2007, 07:42 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 07 2007,08:15)]"This web announcement is clearly a statement with "staff" origins, and it is a good example of just why input needs to be directed to the individual Directors as well as to any focus groups or committees within the League bureaucracy."
Incorrect. All versions of it (as far as I am aware there are three -- one sent to CQ, another sent to us at Newsline and the third on the ARRL website) were penned solely by ARRL President Joel Harrison W5ZN. The one received by us originated from his personal e-mail address -- not from ARRL HQ. Nor do I believe that there was any staff input to him. Those of us who have known Harrison for any length of time also know that he pens all of his own material as did his predecessor Jim Haynie, W5JBP.
There seems to be a misnomer among many of you who seem to confuse the power of ARRL paid staff to represent the political view of the League vs. that of the ARRL BoD. The fact is that the only "political view" that the ARRL paid staff can espouse is that of the ARRL BoD and the ARRL Executive Committee. This is no different than any corporation -- be it private or public -- be it non profit or for profit. Employees are employees. Nothing more -- no matter how much you may think different. (And if you do not believe me -- find a few ex-ARRL employees and ask them.)
Have any of you ever attended an ARRL BoD meeting? Likely not -- but the late Roy Neal, K6DUE, and I did when we taped "The New World of Amateur Radio." We spent an entire day with the ARRL BoD and, contrary to the stories about the meetings being free wheeling and secretive -- what we witnessed was just the opposite. Extremely structured and very rigidly conducted under Roberts Rules. And all policy comes out of those meetings -- not from the various work cubicles in Newington.
Does the ARRL BoD really want input from the membership? I really think that depends on a given divisions Director. Some like our former Director Fried Heyn out here in the Southwest Division constantly solicited input from all of us -- booth members and non-members. I dare to say that Fried was likely one of the most open minded Directors in the history of the division, and while he might not agree with you -- or you with him -- he was always willing to listen and discuss issues. But -- over the years -- and without pointing fingers -- I have also met a number of ARRL divisional Directors whom once elected -- have insulated themselves from their constituencies. In the end, like with all politics -- real world or ham radio -- its really a matter of a given Directors persona.
The bottom line to remember: The ARRL staff employees are just that. They make their living by working at ARRL HQ and if they were to publicly express a personal ham radio political view that would be contrary to the official position of the ARRL BoD then they would face discipline. Thats no different than you or I talking down our employer in public and then getting called on the carpet by the boss.
Whats really needed to dispell the myth that the ARRL Newington staff has an unilateral power to set policy is for one or more who were dismissed to show up here and give first hand detail. I think that you would find what they have to say very illuminating. Until then however, you need to stop blaming the "worker bees" and look at where the policy of the ARRL really comes from. It is the ARRL BoD and the ARRL Executive Committee -- and no place else.
de
Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF
WA0LYK
12-07-2007, 08:32 PM
Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Dec. 07 2007,12:42)]((snip))
The bottom line to remember: #The ARRL staff employees are just that. #They make their living by working at ARRL HQ and if they were to publicly express a personal ham radio political view that would be contrary to the official position of the ARRL BoD then they would face discipline. #Thats no different than you or I talking down our employer in public and then getting called on the carpet by the boss.
Whats really needed to dispell the myth that the ARRL Newington staff has an unilateral power to set policy is for one or more who were dismissed to show up here and give first hand detail. #I think that you would find what they have to say very illuminating. #Until then however, you need to stop blaming the "worker bees" and look at where the policy of the ARRL really comes from. #It is the ARRL BoD and the ARRL Executive Committee -- and no place else.
de
Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF
This just doesn't coincide with what most business schools teach or with what I have learned over the years.
In almost all cases the CEO and his/her management staff determines the direction the company should take and prepare the studies and background information that is presented to the BOD.
This means that the management staff is in control of what information the BOD has to make decisions upon. #In business, information is critical and its source is who controls the power, i.e. management, not the BOD.
One only has to look at the many failed companies such as Enron to see how the management staff was able to manipulate the BOD. #
The ARRL is no different. #The management staff controls much of the information the BOD has to make decisions upon and thereby controls the direction the ARRL is takiing. #Unless you have a very strong Director who is willing to spend the time, and their own money, to develop the data and information appropriate to a given issue, they are simply at the mercy of what the management staff provides them.
Jim
WA0LYK
K8YZK
12-07-2007, 08:51 PM
Geez as a member I do not remember getting any kind of info and request for input from the High and Mighty at the ARRL. Nothing, nil, zilch.
I wonder what planet the ARRL sent their request for our input, maybe Uranus or Pluto?
Their response is a crock of sh**
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 07 2007,11:14)]Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Dec. 07 2007,11:40)]I've stated my case to directors and am what I consider to be friends with the former ARRL President. I actually agree with most of their plan, but a couple of their "gotchas" are major sticking points and that MUST be worked out. I have ideas on how it can be done (which have been communicated up the chain), but I must say that when I got an email threatening a law suit from an ARRL SM, that was beginning of my slide down the slippery slope into ARRL cynicism. I'm not going into details, but I assure you, it's real.
I don't quite understand how an SM (or anyone else) could sue you over making recommendations, Joe. You have valuable knowledge and experience, and your ideas should be sent to the BOD for their edification.
For the record, SMs have no authority beyond that granted by the Board -- that's the case for the entire ARRL organization -- and no SM can inititate any suit on behalf of the ARRL. That the BOD has been remiss in meeting its obligations for management and oversight is an issue that needs to be addressed, and only members acting in good faith can turn that around.
I fully understand the cynicism, but I refuse to give in to it. I tire of hearing (reading?) the same, tired old BS from the same, tired old BSers here on QRZ. Unless we fight (and not just bitch on internet sites) NOTHING will change.
It had nothing to do with providing input to future proposals. It had to do with a certain individual getting a notice from an OO supported by the SM that was completely and technically baseless. I wrote to all of them (in a respectful way) copying Haynie (ARRL Pres at the time),and providing a copy on an eSSB forum explaining exactly why the OO notice wasn't worth (technically) the paper it was printed on. I was right, the receiver of the notice was in the right, and the OO and SM were either clueless how SSB works, or didn't care because it was aimed at a fellow eSSB'er. I was told that those were "private" and my disclosure constituted libel and I was lucky he didn't feel like suing me.
That's about as much as I'm going to say about it. Suffice to say I was through with trying to discuss anything with these guys.
BTW, I'd be all for slicing the bands up by BW if they'd limit the 'bots to a small slice and leave analog voice alone. If they want to limit BW, limit it to digital modes. Leave AM & SSB as they are. To my mind, if they did that, the only thing we'd need to debate is where to draw the proverbial lines. Something like:
xx.000-xx.050 --> 200 Hz,
xx.050-xx.100 --> 500 Hz,
xx.100-/top of band/ >500 Hz - 3k digi, analog voice with the current BW rules. The 'bots get a section down at the bottom of the voice band, and could also be the de facto area for digital voice modes (not in the same window, obviously).
That's off the top of my head for non-WARC bands. The WARCs would have to be set up specifically, obviously. You get the idea.
I think that could get a fair amount of support once the lines are debated and settled on...
Joe, N3JI
W3MIV
12-07-2007, 09:21 PM
Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 07 2007,16:32)]...The management staff controls much of the information the BOD has to make decisions upon and thereby controls the direction the ARRL is takiing. #Unless you have a very strong Director who is willing to spend the time, and their own money, to develop the data and information appropriate to a given issue, they are simply at the mercy of what the management staff provides them.
You are correct, Jim, and Bill is way off base.
W3MIV
12-07-2007, 09:33 PM
Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Dec. 07 2007,17:19)]BTW, I'd be all for slicing the bands up by BW if they'd limit the 'bots to a small slice and leave analog voice alone. #If they want to limit BW, limit it to digital modes. #Leave AM & SSB as they are. #To my mind, if they did that, the only thing we'd need to debate is where to draw the proverbial lines.
Too innovative, Joe. As Johnson once commented, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind."
I believe, given recent history and the "buzzards-on-a-branch" mentality that has so many folks parsing each and every sentence that comes out of either the ARRL or the FCC, a bandwidth allocation scheme is moribund. If the zombie walks again, I will be among the most surprised.
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 07 2007,15:33)]Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Dec. 07 2007,17:19)]BTW, I'd be all for slicing the bands up by BW if they'd limit the 'bots to a small slice and leave analog voice alone. If they want to limit BW, limit it to digital modes. Leave AM & SSB as they are. To my mind, if they did that, the only thing we'd need to debate is where to draw the proverbial lines.
Too innovative, Joe. As Johnson once commented, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind."
I believe, given recent history and the "buzzards-on-a-branch" mentality that has so many folks parsing each and every sentence that comes out of either the ARRL or the FCC, a bandwidth allocation scheme is moribund. If the zombie walks again, I will be among the most surprised.
lol... At this point, you're probably right. Pity, really...
EDIT: BTW, wasn't it Emerson that said that??
KC4RAN
12-07-2007, 09:44 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 06 2007,11:14)]Quote[/b] (N3JI @ Dec. 07 2007,11:40)]I've stated my case to directors and am what I consider to be friends with the former ARRL President. #I actually agree with most of their plan, but a couple of their "gotchas" are major sticking points and that MUST be worked out. #I have ideas on how it can be done (which have been communicated up the chain), but I must say that when I got an email threatening a law suit from an ARRL SM, that was beginning of my slide down the slippery slope into ARRL cynicism. #I'm not going into details, but I assure you, it's real.
I don't quite understand how an SM (or anyone else) could sue you over making recommendations, Joe. You have valuable knowledge and experience, and your ideas should be sent to the BOD for their edification.
For the record, SMs have no authority beyond that granted by the Board -- that's the case for the entire ARRL organization -- and no SM can inititate any suit on behalf of the ARRL. That the BOD has been remiss in meeting its obligations for management and oversight is an issue that needs to be addressed, and only members acting in good faith can turn that around.
I fully understand the cynicism, but I refuse to give in to it. I tire of hearing (reading?) the same, tired old BS from the same, tired old BSers here on QRZ. Unless we fight (and not just bitch on internet sites) NOTHING will change.
Remember, this is America. Anyone can sue anyone for virtually anything. The case may get thrown out eventually, or adjudicated in your favor eventually, but it will still be heard before a judge at some point.
$$$ down the drain...
wa6itf
12-07-2007, 09:56 PM
Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 07 2007,13:32)]Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Dec. 07 2007,12:42)]((snip))
The bottom line to remember: The ARRL staff employees are just that. They make their living by working at ARRL HQ and if they were to publicly express a personal ham radio political view that would be contrary to the official position of the ARRL BoD then they would face discipline. Thats no different than you or I talking down our employer in public and then getting called on the carpet by the boss.
Whats really needed to dispell the myth that the ARRL Newington staff has an unilateral power to set policy is for one or more who were dismissed to show up here and give first hand detail. I think that you would find what they have to say very illuminating. Until then however, you need to stop blaming the "worker bees" and look at where the policy of the ARRL really comes from. It is the ARRL BoD and the ARRL Executive Committee -- and no place else.
de
Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF
This just doesn't coincide with what most business schools teach or with what I have learned over the years.
In almost all cases the CEO and his/her management staff determines the direction the company should take and prepare the studies and background information that is presented to the BOD.
This means that the management staff is in control of what information the BOD has to make decisions upon. In business, information is critical and its source is who controls the power, i.e. management, not the BOD.
One only has to look at the many failed companies such as Enron to see how the management staff was able to manipulate the BOD.
The ARRL is no different. The management staff controls much of the information the BOD has to make decisions upon and thereby controls the direction the ARRL is takiing. Unless you have a very strong Director who is willing to spend the time, and their own money, to develop the data and information appropriate to a given issue, they are simply at the mercy of what the management staff provides them.
Jim
WA0LYK
If you do not want to believe me -- that your decision. The difference is that I have been there. Ive been behind the "closed doors" at a real live ARRL BoD meetring. And I can tell you first hand that the BoD maintains a tight rein over its staff. And in the 80's what I saw was almost at the level of micro-management.
Don't take my word for it. Seek out for yourself and talk to some former staffers and ask what it was like for them to work at HQ and the reason they left (or were dismissed).
ITF
What happened 20 years may or may not be relevant to what happens in 2007. Washington used to be a livable place 20 years ago - politics speaking. Its a war zone now.
k2gsp
12-07-2007, 10:50 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 06 2007,12:46)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Dec. 07 2007,14:29)]PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN !
Don't worry. We rarely listen to your rants.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Nor yours
ab0wr
12-07-2007, 10:52 PM
Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Dec. 07 2007,14:56)]Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 07 2007,13:32)]Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Dec. 07 2007,12:42)]((snip))
The bottom line to remember: The ARRL staff employees are just that. They make their living by working at ARRL HQ and if they were to publicly express a personal ham radio political view that would be contrary to the official position of the ARRL BoD then they would face discipline. Thats no different than you or I talking down our employer in public and then getting called on the carpet by the boss.
Whats really needed to dispell the myth that the ARRL Newington staff has an unilateral power to set policy is for one or more who were dismissed to show up here and give first hand detail. I think that you would find what they have to say very illuminating. Until then however, you need to stop blaming the "worker bees" and look at where the policy of the ARRL really comes from. It is the ARRL BoD and the ARRL Executive Committee -- and no place else.
de
Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF
This just doesn't coincide with what most business schools teach or with what I have learned over the years.
In almost all cases the CEO and his/her management staff determines the direction the company should take and prepare the studies and background information that is presented to the BOD.
This means that the management staff is in control of what information the BOD has to make decisions upon. In business, information is critical and its source is who controls the power, i.e. management, not the BOD.
One only has to look at the many failed companies such as Enron to see how the management staff was able to manipulate the BOD.
The ARRL is no different. The management staff controls much of the information the BOD has to make decisions upon and thereby controls the direction the ARRL is takiing. Unless you have a very strong Director who is willing to spend the time, and their own money, to develop the data and information appropriate to a given issue, they are simply at the mercy of what the management staff provides them.
Jim
WA0LYK
If you do not want to believe me -- that your decision. The difference is that I have been there. Ive been behind the "closed doors" at a real live ARRL BoD meetring. And I can tell you first hand that the BoD maintains a tight rein over its staff. And in the 80's what I saw was almost at the level of micro-management.
Don't take my word for it. Seek out for yourself and talk to some former staffers and ask what it was like for them to work at HQ and the reason they left (or were dismissed).
ITF
Bill,
This just doesn't jive with reality. The BOD had to sit on the paid staff AFTER THE FACT when the staff saw fit to try and push changing Part 97 to allow encryption on the ham bands.
If those of us outside the ARRL building in Newington hadn't gotten wind of this and made our views on the subject known to some key Directors it would have been too far down the road for the BOD to do anything about it except go along.
I suspect that the atmosphere at the ARRL has changed significantly since you attended a BOD meeting.
I've been involved with some other BOD meetings. Not only is the Executive staff in a position to control the info the BOD has at hand, they are also usually very much in control of the agenda and its timetable. This gives them significant control over how much discussion can take place on issues they want to see decided in a specific manner and allows them to, usually at least, very much dominate the discussion.
I will also repeat -- the BOD was not at the IARU convention, paid staffers were. It was still the BOD's responsibility to make sure those staffers represented the view of the US amateur community instead of their own personal agenda --- AND THE BOD FAILED UTTERLY.
The fact that they have NOT disciplined the Executive staff at the ARRL over this is mute proof of just where the power lies today. I assure you that if a member of the Exec staff in most companies attended an industry meeting and advanced an agenda totally at odds with the views of the shareholders of the company they would be disciplined publically and harshly in most companies.
Read into this what you will. I know what I make of it.
tim ab0wr
KC9JIQ
12-07-2007, 11:03 PM
I support the ARRL by buying their books, nothing more.
NN4RH
12-08-2007, 01:37 AM
Quote[/b] (NN3W @ Dec. 07 2007,12:10)]. . . The following statement was authorized by ARRL President Joel Harrison, W5ZN.
. . .
The revised Region 2 band plan for 160-10 meters takes effect January 1, 2008. The band plan is based on the band plan adopted by IARU Region 1 at its conference in Davos, Switzerland in September 2005.
. . .
It happens that the ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" petition, the now-withdrawn RM-11306, also drew on the Region 1 band plan. This is acknowledged on page 10 of the petition. The similarities between RM-11306 and the Region 2 band plan are the result of having some common roots, but the two are not otherwise related.
IMO - The ARRL should be more concerned about representing US hams, not blindly copying Region 1's bandplan.
Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Dec. 07 2007,20:37)]Quote[/b] (NN3W @ Dec. 07 2007,12:10)]. . . The following statement was authorized by ARRL President Joel Harrison, W5ZN.
. . .
The revised Region 2 band plan for 160-10 meters takes effect January 1, 2008. The band plan is based on the band plan adopted by IARU Region 1 at its conference in Davos, Switzerland in September 2005.
. . .
It happens that the ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" petition, the now-withdrawn RM-11306, also drew on the Region 1 band plan. This is acknowledged on page 10 of the petition. The similarities between RM-11306 and the Region 2 band plan are the result of having some common roots, but the two are not otherwise related.
IMO - The ARRL should be more concerned about representing US hams, not blindly copying Region 1's bandplan.
Ask any region 1 Hams what they think of their "bandplan".
When the RM-11306 stink bomb was unleashed here, there were several European Hams who posted saying that the one thing we shouldn't do is regulation by bandwidth. They said the QRM situation is now 10x worse than it was because incompatible modes are sharing the same spectrum.
Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Dec. 07 2007,16:56)]If you do not want to believe me -- that your decision. #The difference is that I have been there. #Ive been behind the "closed doors" at a real live ARRL BoD meetring. #And I can tell you first hand that the BoD maintains a tight rein over its staff. #And in the 80's what I saw was almost at the level of micro-management.
Don't take my word for it. #Seek out for yourself and talk to some former staffers and ask what it was like for them to work at HQ and the reason they left (or were dismissed). #
ITF
This explains why my division director looked at me with that blank expression when we were discussing my deep oposition to regulation by bandwidth and RM-11306. He didn't know what the hell I was talking about.
You want us to believe that a BoD who meets semi-annually has a tight rein on the executive committee? Please.........stop.
If the ARRL BoD has complete control of the executive committee why was Skip Teller told by said committee he wouldn't be allowed to present a dissenting opinion to the Ad-Hod digital committee's report to the BoD?
One of two answers are possible.
#1. The BoD already had it's mind made up to sell out to WinLink and the Ad-Hoc digital committee was just a sham.
#2. The BoD doesn't have a clue what the executive committee and their appointed minions are doing or saying on their behalf.
I don't know which one is worse.
WA0LYK
12-08-2007, 01:36 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Dec. 08 2007,06:13)]Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Dec. 07 2007,20:37)]Quote[/b] (NN3W @ Dec. 07 2007,12:10)]. . . The following statement was authorized by ARRL President Joel Harrison, W5ZN.
. . .
The revised Region 2 band plan for 160-10 meters takes effect January 1, 2008. The band plan is based on the band plan adopted by IARU Region 1 at its conference in Davos, Switzerland in September 2005.
. . .
It happens that the ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" petition, the now-withdrawn RM-11306, also drew on the Region 1 band plan. This is acknowledged on page 10 of the petition. The similarities between RM-11306 and the Region 2 band plan are the result of having some common roots, but the two are not otherwise related.
IMO - The ARRL should be more concerned about representing US hams, not blindly copying Region 1's bandplan.
Ask any region 1 Hams what they think of their "bandplan".
When the RM-11306 stink bomb was unleashed here, there were several European Hams who posted saying that the one thing we shouldn't do is regulation by bandwidth. They said the QRM situation is now 10x worse than it was because incompatible modes are sharing the same spectrum.
I agree. One only has to read some of the Region 1 documents to discover that there are lots of hams dissatisfied with the way the region 1 bandplan is working.
One thing that needs to be included in a bandwidth regulatory scheme is to include interference mitigation techniques that must be incorporated into any subsequent bandplans. If you do the work to develop these interference mitigation rules you will find that all of a sudden you are back to mode segregation. Things like necessary/occupied bandwidths, crest factors, numbers of users, etc. all play into interference mitigation and guess what, mode segregation.
So, what is the purpose of bandwidth regulation if your bandplans are going to segregate modes? The general comment is that you can more easily change bandplans. Yeah, right, on paper! Human nature being what it is, changing a bandplan that isn't also included in the rules won't change a thing. If you have to make a bandplan a regulation, then you are right back to mode regulation.
So what is the purpose?
Jim
WA0LYK
WA0LYK
12-08-2007, 01:57 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Dec. 08 2007,06:27)]Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Dec. 07 2007,16:56)]If you do not want to believe me -- that your decision. The difference is that I have been there. Ive been behind the "closed doors" at a real live ARRL BoD meetring. And I can tell you first hand that the BoD maintains a tight rein over its staff. And in the 80's what I saw was almost at the level of micro-management.
Don't take my word for it. Seek out for yourself and talk to some former staffers and ask what it was like for them to work at HQ and the reason they left (or were dismissed).
ITF
This explains why my division director looked at me with that blank expression when we were discussing my deep oposition to regulation by bandwidth and RM-11306. He didn't know what the hell I was talking about.
You want us to believe that a BoD who meets semi-annually has a tight rein on the executive committee? Please.........stop.
If the ARRL BoD has complete control of the executive committee why was Skip Teller told by said committee he wouldn't be allowed to present a dissenting opinion to the Ad-Hod digital committee's report to the BoD?
One of two answers are possible.
#1. The BoD already had it's mind made up to sell out to WinLink and the Ad-Hoc digital committee was just a sham.
#2. The BoD doesn't have a clue what the executive committee and their appointed minions are doing or saying on their behalf.
I don't know which one is worse.
That is exactly what I was saying. Management controls the information that is presented to the BOD and therefore can control the decisions that are made.
This isn't rocket science. It is just the way business operates. If I was on the BOD at this time, I would require dissenting opinions be presented by management on all major decisions just to make sure they have taken all sides into account rather than just having folks with an agenda control any given issue.
Jim
WA0LYK
n5rfx
12-08-2007, 02:15 PM
Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 07 2007,07:36)]So, what is the purpose of bandwidth regulation if your bandplans are going to segregate modes? The general comment is that you can more easily change bandplans. Yeah, right, on paper! Human nature being what it is, changing a bandplan that isn't also included in the rules won't change a thing. If you have to make a bandplan a regulation, then you are right back to mode regulation.
So what is the purpose?
The only change from what we have now is that data modes would be allowed to operate in the phone bands. The data modes that are of concern are wideband data modes, specifically Pactor III under automatic control. This is why automatically controlled stations would still need to be corralled in automatic control subbands.
I don't agree that the interference situation in the phone bands would get any worse but I do agree that the interference situation would not improve. What wideband data modes would actually move to the phone bands that are not already there as image, or phone modes?
We allow J2C and J2E emissions to mix with J3E today, under regulation by bandwidth we would be adding J2D. As long as the automatically controlled stations are corralled in their subbands, the J2D traffic would be complementary to J2C and J2E.
73,
Mark N5RFX
WA0LYK
12-08-2007, 02:38 PM
Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Dec. 08 2007,07:15)]Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 07 2007,07:36)]So, what is the purpose of bandwidth regulation if your bandplans are going to segregate modes? The general comment is that you can more easily change bandplans. Yeah, right, on paper! Human nature being what it is, changing a bandplan that isn't also included in the rules won't change a thing. If you have to make a bandplan a regulation, then you are right back to mode regulation.
So what is the purpose?
The only change from what we have now is that data modes would be allowed to operate in the phone bands. The data modes that are of concern are wideband data modes, specifically Pactor III under automatic control. This is why automatically controlled stations would still need to be corralled in automatic control subbands.
I don't agree that the interference situation in the phone bands would get any worse but I do agree that the interference situation would not improve. The reason why I feel interference situation would not get any worse is, what wideband data modes would actually move to the phone bands that are not already there as image, or phone modes?
We allow J2C and J2E emissions to mix with J3E today, under regulation by bandwidth we would be adding J2D. As long as the automatically controlled stations are corralled in their subbands, the J2D traffic would be complementary to J2C and J2E.
73,
Mark N5RFX
You missed my point. For example, let's just say the fcc says anywhere in the band at less than 6 kHz, and we make a space in a bandplan for wide digital modes, i.e. > 1 kHz, from 3900 to 3930. Do you really think the current SSB users will give it up? What about 10 years down the road when you expand it to 3950? Will the SSB users abandon the extra 20 kHz? Not likely!
One of the complaints from region 1 is that more and more SSB users are encroaching into the space allocated by bandplan to cw/digi users. How do you stop this with just a recommended bandplan? Those countries that simply said in their regulations you can operate anywhere at < 6 kHz invited anarchy and that is what they have.
My point was that if you need to include bandplans into regulations to make them enforceable, then you have gained nothing over mode regulation.
Jim
WA0LYK
Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 08 2007,07:38)]One of the complaints from region 1 is that more and more SSB users are encroaching into the space allocated by bandplan to cw/digi users. How do you stop this with just a recommended bandplan? Those countries that simply said in their regulations you can operate anywhere at < 6 kHz invited anarchy and that is what they have.
My point was that if you need to include bandplans into regulations to make them enforceable, then you have gained nothing over mode regulation.
Very correct, Jim. Likewise the other complaint from Region 1 was that digital users are moving down into the bottom 25kHz of the band on top of CW users. They mention the bandwidth regulation gives encroachers a feeling of entitlement. Likewise USA users would not give up spectrum without a nasty on the air fight. So the "Big Three" problems with Bandwidth Bandplanning have always been:
1. Trying to impose the will of the few over the many with no real need demonstrated other than "we want it".
2. US Amateurs do not play well together and throwing all modes together without a strict mode based bandplan would be very nasty for a long time. This mode based bandplan would pretty much be what we have today, so why change?
3. Many digital enthusiasts don't care about anything but digital and will expand operation wherever they can get away with it.
Any one of the three is enough to trump any bandplan regulation in my book.
NN4RH
12-08-2007, 03:35 PM
Quote[/b] ]I will also repeat -- the BOD was not at the IARU convention, paid staffers were. It was still the BOD's responsibility to make sure those staffers represented the view of the US amateur community instead of their own personal agenda --- AND THE BOD FAILED UTTERLY.
And if you look at the minutes of the January and July 2007 ARRL Board of Directors meetings, nowhere will you find any record of any vote or evidence of any direction by the Board concerning ARRL promoting or adopting Region 1's band plan at the IARU Region 2 meeting.
Nothing about it any of the committee reports, either. Or in the September Executive Committee minutes.
Does anyone have any documented evidence that the ARRL Board told Rinaldo to push this band plan on behalf of ARRL and/or US hams? Or was Rinaldo acting without authorization?
Or was there a secret BOD meeting some time after July?
PS: Here's something in the minutes of the March 2007 Executive Committee meeting:
Quote[/b] ]12.3. Mr. Harrison reported on ARRL preparations to participate in the IARU Region 2 Conference in Brasilia, September 9-14. Mr. Stafford reported on preparations taking place in IARU Region 2.
So a new question arises: What were those "preparations" and did they include a decision regarding adopting this bandplan? If so, why did not the ARRL post a news item at that time saying that they were going to support a new bandplan when the IARU met later in the year? Why did they keep it secret?
k4kyv
12-08-2007, 03:37 PM
Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 08 2007,14:38)]Those countries that simply said in their regulations you can operate anywhere at < 6 kHz invited anarchy and that is what they have.
Unless I misinterpreted something that I read, the most recent regulations in the UK have no legal limitations whatever on bandwidth or mode of emission. The rules simply say you can run anything you wish, regardless of bandwidth, as long as it stays within the confines of the amateur band. One digital or fast-scan TV signal that covers the entire band from 3500 to 3800 would be legal as far as the government is concerned. If that is correct, then the UK must rely entirely on a voluntary band.
OTOH Germany appears to have a specific bandwidth limit that precludes anything wider than SSB, and that includes prohibition of AM.
On the staff comments:
Nothing prevents the type of serrepticious activity we have seen at the staff level. A good example is that the original digital ad hoc committee was not charged with coming up with a bandwidth regulation plan. They were not authorized by the Directors to do this. They were aided by staff, and after we discovered what happened, the people who disagreed were not threatened with legal action by the Directors, but by staff. When it was posted here on QRZ, I was not called by Frank Butler, my Director at the time, I was called by staff members. I even got an email from one staffer that was nothing but an extended obscenity.
Another example recently is a staff member asking that the bandwidth limitation be added to the Region 2 bandplan (because "some amateurs are getting too wide") witnessed by another IARU member. When pressed the staffer denied it ever happened. My Director had assured me no staff were involved. I passed the name and contact info to my Director and I can only assume he followed up on it.
I am an ARRL member because I believe in what HPM started way back when. I believe in the many good things they do now. Get the ARRL back doing the will of the members and it would be perfect. I hate having to be suspicious of a few staffers (most do a fantastic job) but I hate even more the Pollyanna-ish attitude that prevents the few real problems from being fixed.
W3MIV
12-08-2007, 06:07 PM
Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Dec. 08 2007,11:35)]Does anyone have any documented evidence that the ARRL Board told Rinaldo to push this band plan on behalf of ARRL and/or US hams? Or was Rinaldo acting without authorization?
What you should be asking is "does anyone have any proof that Rinaldo was responsible for the band plan?"
The simple fact is that Rinaldo was ONE member of a committee, and not even the chair. He was the secretary. It seems to be insulting to the other members of the committee to conclude (wholly without evidence) that he exercised such power over everyone else on that committee, doesn't it?
Rinaldo is the mythical "heavy" in everything that the League has been doing for the past decade it would seem. I am told he owns a black helicopter, too.
ab0wr
12-08-2007, 06:29 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 08 2007,11:07)]Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Dec. 08 2007,11:35)]Does anyone have any documented evidence that the ARRL Board told Rinaldo to push this band plan on behalf of ARRL and/or US hams? Or was Rinaldo acting without authorization?
What you should be asking is "does anyone have any proof that Rinaldo was responsible for the band plan?"
The simple fact is that Rinaldo was ONE member of a committee, and not even the chair. He was the secretary. It seems to be insulting to the other members of the committee to conclude (wholly without evidence) that he exercised such power over everyone else on that committee, doesn't it?
Rinaldo is the mythical "heavy" in everything that the League has been doing for the past decade it would seem. I am told he owns a black helicopter, too.
Albert,
What everyone *should* be asking is exactly what Rinaldo did to represent the views of the majority of the United States amateur community at the IARU convention.
If he did NOTHING then he failed to represent the US amateur community adequately.
If he did *anything* to make other representatives at the convention believe that bandwidth regulation was acceptable to the US amateur community then it becomes even worse!
It is the United States IARU representatives duty and obligation to represent the views of the overall amateur community in the US. Not the views of the ARRL BOD. Not the views of the ARRL Executive staff. And not the personal views of the individual representative.
It is obvious that the ARRL representatives abdicated that responsibility at best and, at worst, subverted it.
It is just one more indication of the lack of integrity and honesty at the ARRL today.
No amount of lame excuses or defenses will make this any better.
tim ab0wr
W3MIV
12-08-2007, 06:43 PM
Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 08 2007,14:29)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 08 2007,11:07)]Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Dec. 08 2007,11:35)]Does anyone have any documented evidence that the ARRL Board told Rinaldo to push this band plan on behalf of ARRL and/or US hams? Or was Rinaldo acting without authorization?
What you should be asking is "does anyone have any proof that Rinaldo was responsible for the band plan?"
The simple fact is that Rinaldo was ONE member of a committee, and not even the chair. He was the secretary. It seems to be insulting to the other members of the committee to conclude (wholly without evidence) that he exercised such power over everyone else on that committee, doesn't it?
Rinaldo is the mythical "heavy" in everything that the League has been doing for the past decade it would seem. I am told he owns a black helicopter, too.
Albert,
What everyone *should* be asking is exactly what Rinaldo did to represent the views of the majority of the United States amateur community at the IARU convention.
If he did NOTHING then he failed to represent the US amateur community adequately.
If he did *anything* to make other representatives at the convention believe that bandwidth regulation was acceptable to the US amateur community then it becomes even worse!
It is the United States IARU representatives duty and obligation to represent the views of the overall amateur community in the US. Not the views of the ARRL BOD. Not the views of the ARRL Executive staff. And not the personal views of the individual representative.
It is obvious that the ARRL representatives abdicated that responsibility at best and, at worst, subverted it.
It is just one more indication of the lack of integrity and honesty at the ARRL today.
No amount of lame excuses or defenses will make this any better.
tim ab0wr
What you fail to realize is, without any proof of all the assertions about what Rinaldo did or did not do, or what Rinaldo might have done or might not have done, all of your assertions are meaningless. They are assumptions based solely on what you want to believe, not on any factual basis of what may or may not have taken place.
The simple and irreducible fact is that Rinaldo was ONE member of a committee. He was not the chairman of that committee, but he did act as its secretary. Beyond those two facts, you have nothing but assumption.
Rinaldo has a very strong personality -- indeed, many people consider him arrogant and coldly aloof while paying respect to his technical expertise -- but there is no evidence that he is so powerful that he strong-armed an entire committee to get his way.
The genesis of the band plan has been explained time and again to all of you. That you refuse to accept any of the explanations speaks far more about you than it does about the population of the IARU Region II HF Committee or, indeed, about the band plan itself.
There is NO attempt to revisit RM-11306 in any of this. That none of you seem willing to believe anything other than conspiracy theories and black-helo BS does not make any of it real or true.
w5alt
12-08-2007, 06:45 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 08 2007,14:07)]Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ Dec. 08 2007,11:35)]Does anyone have any documented evidence that the ARRL Board told Rinaldo to push this band plan on behalf of ARRL and/or US hams? Or was Rinaldo acting without authorization?
What you should be asking is "does anyone have any proof that Rinaldo was responsible for the band plan?"
Actually, whether it was Rinaldo or someone else representing the ARRL is not important. The ARRL was supposedly representing US amateurs. The official ARRL story line is that it was the result of an open process.
Now, logically, if there were other ARRL representatives present, then who were they and what were their comments? If there weren't, then it would seem that Mr. Rinaldo was indeed responsible for representing the ARRL position. If he wasn't responsible for representing the ARRL position, then who was?
If (note I said if) he was responsible, then he either followed directions given by the ARRL or he was a renegade representative. Assuming he was indeed following ARRL policy as any good employee should, then who (person or group) gave the direction to support the bandwidth based plan? If it was the BoD, then that should be noted, since as Mr. Pasternak points out, the ARRL staff are under tight scrutiny. If it wasn't the BoD, then it must have been the paid staff and the BoD scrutiny comes into question.
So, let's assume it was the staff following BoD orders and Mr. Rinaldo was just a good employee doing his job. Then either those orders are documented (it was an open process, remember) or there must have been some behind-the-scenes meetings going on or some other explanation.
I'm interested in listening to the explanation.
Quote[/b] ]The simple fact is that Rinaldo was ONE member of a committee, and not even the chair. He was the secretary. It seems to be insulting to the other members of the committee to conclude (wholly without evidence) that he exercised such power over everyone else on that committee, doesn't it?
Rinaldo is the mythical "heavy" in everything that the League has been doing for the past decade it would seem. I am told he owns a black helicopter, too.
This is truly good news, Albert!
Since Rinaldo was the secretary, then he should have documented who proposed the plan and the comments in support or opposition that the ARRL officially presented. Please let us know where to find the minutes he recorded as secretary. Some of us would be pleased to help dispel the rumors that the ARRL acted without support of US amateurs. I'd also be interested in seeing the evidence of the open process they used to come up with their support (or lack of support) for the band plan. So far it seems that it was an open process that only a few knew about.
Give us the ammunition to battle the misunderstanding, please.
73,
Walt, W5ALT
(BTW, where can I get my black helicopter? I've always wanted one of them.)
k2gsp
12-08-2007, 07:34 PM
"There is NO attempt to revisit RM-11306 in any of this." ,W3MIV
And there's an assumption on your part. If you don't know what was said and by whom. Then how can you state it wasn't an end run on 11306?
W3MIV
12-08-2007, 07:50 PM
Quote[/b] (w5alt @ Dec. 08 2007,14:45)]The ARRL was supposedly representing US amateurs. The official ARRL story line is that it was the result of an open process.
We have no evidence that it wasn't an "open process," Walt. Again, it seems to me to be crediting Rinaldo with nearly supernatural powers to assume that he would sway the other committee members to follow his wants -- unless, of course, their "wants" and his coincided. More to the point, there is no evidence that Rinaldo did not pitch a hissy fit in resistance to the adoption of the band plan, is there?
Quote[/b] ]Since Rinaldo was the secretary, then he should have documented who proposed the plan and the comments in support or opposition that the ARRL officially presented. Please let us know where to find the minutes he recorded as secretary. Some of us would be pleased to help dispel the rumors that the ARRL acted without support of US amateurs. I'd also be interested in seeing the evidence of the open process they used to come up with their support (or lack of support) for the band plan. So far it seems that it was an open process that only a few knew about.
Give us the ammunition to battle the misunderstanding, please.
Sorry, Walt, but you will have to go to the IARU for that information. I surely don't have it.
Did you check the IARU bylaws to make sure that minutes are required of committee meetings? I am a secretary of a club, and our bylaws do not mandate minutes of either the membership or executive committee meetings, though I make them and retain them nonetheless. I feel it is a prudent step, but others may not agree with me.
Since my panties are not in a bunch over any of this, I have not bothered to check any of it out.
73
KC4RAN
12-08-2007, 07:58 PM
The ARRL either did or did not attempt to actively gather information on the viewpoints of the membership with regards to the (at that time) upcoming IARU meeting.
Either Rinaldo was 'undirected' or he was 'directed' by the ARRL BoD on what postion to take.
Rinaldo either was the US representative to the IARU, or someone else was, or no one was.
The ARRL either did or did not meet to formulate a strategy and do planning with regards to the IARU meeting, and either did or did not consider the views of the amateur community that was or was not gathered, and did or did not consider what they learned as a result of RM-11306.
The meeting minutes either do or do not show who proposed what, what comments were made.
All of these do/do-not items should be recorded somewhere. All I think most people are asking is to see the record. The ARRL should have records of it's own proceedings to set the record straight on how they formulated their position, if and how they directed Rinaldo. The IARU meeting minutes should show who said what.
Is it too much to ask our representative organization *what* their position was, *how* they came to the decision to take that position, *how* it was represented to the IARU, and *who* was in support of what within the IARU?
And yes, yet again the ARRL is blaming things on us 'dumb ol hams' "misunderstanding" the situation. Now either the ARRL has a procedural problem in how to gather and represent the views of the members, or it has a huge communication and PR problem, or perhaps both. But telling members and hams-at-large yet again that it was our fault for not understanding is getting quite old. Kinda hard to get rid of the "Papa knows best" view of most of the ham population if you keep doing crap like this...
W3MIV
12-08-2007, 08:20 PM
Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Dec. 08 2007,15:58)]Is it too much to ask our representative organization *what* their position was, *how* they came to the decision to take that position, *how* it was represented to the IARU, and *who* was in support of what within the IARU?
Ask these questions of your Director.
My personal opinion is that the release of the comment by Harrison referred to in this thread was a mistake. Indeed, I believe it was a stupid one. My own inclination would have been to let the issue die -- how was it that Nixon (or one of his henchmen) put it: "Twist slowly in the wind?"
As the late Eric Sevareid might have put it, "The issue is a none issue. The question is, is there a question at all?"
I don't think there is. Much ado about nothing.
KC4RAN
12-08-2007, 08:35 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 07 2007,14:20)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Dec. 08 2007,15:58)]Is it too much to ask our representative organization *what* their position was, *how* they came to the decision to take that position, *how* it was represented to the IARU, and *who* was in support of what within the IARU?
Ask these questions of your Director.
My personal opinion is that the release of the comment by Harrison referred to in this thread was a mistake. Indeed, I believe it was a stupid one. My own inclination would have been to let the issue die -- how was it that Nixon (or one of his henchmen) put it: "Twist slowly in the wind?"
As the late Eric Sevareid might have put it, "The issue is a none issue. The question is, is there a question at all?"
I don't think there is. Much ado about nothing.
I probably will at some point, but it's a discussion I'd rather have face-to-face with him, since I'd like to discuss the larger "PR and communication" problem that the ARRL seems to have. Some, like my Division Director, seem to be working on making it better, others I have no idea about.
Here's an email we in Delta received from our Director. While it still references a "misunderstanding", to me this letter doesn't carry the negative tone of others I've seen posted...
Quote[/b] ]
To: All Delta Division ARRL Members:
This has been a very busy time since the second ARRL Board-of-Directors
meeting in July. I need to give you all some information that I
believe will answer some, if not all of your questions.
Several of you have contacted me concerning the IARU Region 2 Band Plan
information. After doing research on this subject, I responded to
several of you via e-mail.
It appears a small group misinterpreted exactly what the IARU Region 2
Band Plan is. It is a band plan, not a regulatory ruling by the FCC or
a regulatory petition filing by ARRL. This appears to be a band plan
for recommendations, not law.
If you are interested, an article will be on the ARRL web site in
regards to December CQ editorial that made accusations against ARRL.
We wish that CQ chosen to contact ARRL prior to publishing the story to
validate it.
Please, read the complete article on the ARRL Web site. Again, I hope
this will answer your questions.
In working together, we can and will have a very good amateur radio
service. I hope to hear and talk to you on the bands. Please, have a
safe and HAPPY HOLIDAY SEASON!!!!!
73,
Henry R. Leggette, WD4Q
Director, Delta Division
ARRL
w5alt
12-08-2007, 09:01 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 08 2007,15:50)]We have no evidence that it wasn't an "open process," Walt. Again, it seems to me to be crediting Rinaldo with nearly supernatural powers to assume that he would sway the other committee members to follow his wants -- unless, of course, their "wants" and his coincided. More to the point, there is no evidence that Rinaldo did not pitch a hissy fit in resistance to the adoption of the band plan, is there?
Now that's funny, Albert! I don't think I've ever heard of an "open" process where there was no evidence! Please explain how that would work?
The evidence that there was no "hissy fit" came from other IARU representatives, who specifically said that a certain Mr. Rinaldo proposed the 2.7 kHz limitation. Now, perhaps that didn't really happen. Maybe the other IARU representatives were mistaken or there was another Rinaldo attending from, maybe Brazil or Peru or somewhere else.
So, tell me, which do you think really happened? Or are you saying that the other IARU representatives are liars? Please clarify so we can get upset at the right people.
Quote[/b] ]Sorry, Walt, but you will have to go to the IARU for that information. I surely don't have it.
So you are operating with conjectures just like everyone else? Albert, I'm disappointed. I thought you were arguing based on information.
Quote[/b] ]Did you check the IARU bylaws to make sure that minutes are required of committee meetings? I am a secretary of a club, and our bylaws do not mandate minutes of either the membership or executive committee meetings, though I make them and retain them nonetheless. I feel it is a prudent step, but others may not agree with me.
Albert, do you think I would ask without checking? In Region 2 there is no explicit statement concerning minutes, except that the Secretary has to take them for the Executive Committee and General Assembly meetings. That's slightly different than the other regions, by the way.
I agree that making the minutes available would be prudent. Unless a group is not really open, or if there is something that they don't want known, or if there is a lack of organization. Or maybe IARU Region2 just thinks that keeping amateurs informed of their proceedings isn't a real consideration? So, which should we believe -- or is there another explanation?
Quote[/b] ]Since my panties are not in a bunch over any of this, I have not bothered to check any of it out.
I think that says it all, Albert. Others have bothered to check it out, but you admit to arguing without having checked it out.
Thanks for the clarification.
73,
Walt, W5ALT
k2gsp
12-08-2007, 09:11 PM
Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Dec. 07 2007,14:35)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 07 2007,14:20)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Dec. 08 2007,15:58)]Is it too much to ask our representative organization *what* their position was, *how* they came to the decision to take that position, *how* it was represented to the IARU, and *who* was in support of what within the IARU?
Ask these questions of your Director.
My personal opinion is that the release of the comment by Harrison referred to in this thread was a mistake. Indeed, I believe it was a stupid one. My own inclination would have been to let the issue die -- how was it that Nixon (or one of his henchmen) put it: "Twist slowly in the wind?"
As the late Eric Sevareid might have put it, "The issue is a none issue. The question is, is there a question at all?"
I don't think there is. Much ado about nothing.
I probably will at some point, but it's a discussion I'd rather have face-to-face with him, since I'd like to discuss the larger "PR and communication" problem that the ARRL seems to have. Some, like my Division Director, seem to be working on making it better, others I have no idea about.
Here's an email we in Delta received from our Director. While it still references a "misunderstanding", to me this letter doesn't carry the negative tone of others I've seen posted...
Quote[/b] ]
To: All Delta Division ARRL Members:
This has been a very busy time since the second ARRL Board-of-Directors
meeting in July. I need to give you all some information that I
believe will answer some, if not all of your questions.
Several of you have contacted me concerning the IARU Region 2 Band Plan
information. After doing research on this subject, I responded to
several of you via e-mail.
It appears a small group misinterpreted exactly what the IARU Region 2
Band Plan is. It is a band plan, not a regulatory ruling by the FCC or
a regulatory petition filing by ARRL. This appears to be a band plan
for recommendations, not law.
If you are interested, an article will be on the ARRL web site in
regards to December CQ editorial that made accusations against ARRL.
We wish that CQ chosen to contact ARRL prior to publishing the story to
validate it.
Please, read the complete article on the ARRL Web site. Again, I hope
this will answer your questions.
In working together, we can and will have a very good amateur radio
service. I hope to hear and talk to you on the bands. Please, have a
safe and HAPPY HOLIDAY SEASON!!!!!
73,
Henry R. Leggette, WD4Q
Director, Delta Division
ARRL
Everyone knows or should know the bandplan is not a regulation. That was never the problem with it. The problem lies in what will happen next. The ARRL now armed with the new IARU bandplan has new ammunition to revisit 11306 and point to it and say see this is what we should be doing. This is what everyone else wants. Contrary to what is in that e-mail you posted. There wasn't a misconception about the IARU's bandplan. I think all to many know exactly what is going on. The ARRL doesn't listen to the the majority of the licensees at large. They have shown they aren't even listening to the majority of their members. #They have their own agenda and the membership and the majority be damned, because the ARRL knows what's best and the majority is to stupid to know what's best. If they were actually listening then they should have fought #tooth and nail against the new bandplan after seeing the majority comments, but strangely enough we end up with an 11306 clone that coinicidently fits right into the ARRL's agenda. I think the CQ editorial was dead on and no PR is going to dress up what the ARRL is doing and make it smell like roses.
K8YZK
12-08-2007, 09:11 PM
"I don't think there is. Much ado about nothing"
So if I have been reading your comments, then all we should do is bury our heads in the sands and let the all knowing. all powerful ARRL lead us down the road to a better(in someone opinion) ham radio?
As others have said the ARRL was suppose to represent the US Ham in the IARU, but did they? Yes there should be minutes of the meeting in this International Group.
So if the majority of those that commented on the now infamous RM said no and the arrl pulled it, did the US delegation say no to the proposal for Region II, or at least dissent to it? Seems that the US reps were either mute, dumb, or behind it.
Since it seems that the representive to the IARU are from the ARRL, and some of them have called the average ham dumb and stupid, I would believe that they are trying to a end around run, on getting the bandwidth bs back.
No it is not much ado about nothing, it is much ado about something that a FEW are trying to get over on the Many.
WA0LYK
12-08-2007, 10:55 PM
Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ Dec. 08 2007,14:11)]Everyone knows or should know the bandplan is not a regulation. That was never the problem with it. The problem lies in what will happen next. The ARRL now armed with the new IARU bandplan has new ammunition to revisit 11306 and point to it and say see this is what we should be doing. This is what everyone else wants. Contrary to what is in that e-mail you posted. There wasn't a misconception about the IARU's bandplan. I think all to many know exactly what is going on. The ARRL doesn't listen to the the majority of the licensees at large. They have shown they aren't even listening to the majority of their members. They have their own agenda and the membership and the majority be damned, because the ARRL knows what's best and the majority is to stupid to know what's best. If they were actually listening then they should have fought tooth and nail against the new bandplan after seeing the majority comments, but strangely enough we end up with an 11306 clone that coinicidently fits right into the ARRL's agenda. I think the CQ editorial was dead on and no PR is going to dress up what the ARRL is doing and make it smell like roses.
Exactly! Here is the first paragraph of the bandplan.
"The IARU Region 2 has established this band plan as the way to
better organize the use of our bands efficiently. To the extent possible,
this band plan is harmonized this with those of the other regions. It is
suggested that Member Societies, in coordination with the authorities,
incorporate it in their regulations and promote it widely with their radio
amateur communities."
Does anyone think the ARRL doesn't have plans to do exactly what this paragraph recommends? I'll guarantee you, that it is exactly what was planned from the beginning, and now they can point to an international agreement that "legitimizes" the position they are taking.
Jim
WA0LYK
NN4RH
12-08-2007, 10:55 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 08 2007,15:20)]. . .
My personal opinion is that the release of the comment by Harrison referred to in this thread was a mistake. Indeed, I believe it was a stupid one.
. . .
This is something we can agree on!
WA0LYK
12-08-2007, 11:01 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 08 2007,13:20)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Dec. 08 2007,15:58)]Is it too much to ask our representative organization *what* their position was, *how* they came to the decision to take that position, *how* it was represented to the IARU, and *who* was in support of what within the IARU?
Ask these questions of your Director.
My personal opinion is that the release of the comment by Harrison referred to in this thread was a mistake. Indeed, I believe it was a stupid one. My own inclination would have been to let the issue die -- how was it that Nixon (or one of his henchmen) put it: "Twist slowly in the wind?"
As the late Eric Sevareid might have put it, "The issue is a none issue. The question is, is there a question at all?"
I don't think there is. Much ado about nothing.
Again, why should we have to ask the directors anything. The arrl is representing ALL United States amateurs in front of the IARU. As such, they should be proud enough to tell everyone what issues/positions the arrl proposed, what their position was on those they didn't propose, and how they voted on each issue.
This isn't something we should have to drag out of the arrl staff or out of the directors. This information should be forthcoming with full disclosure. These aren't "secret" society meetings, or at least they are not supposed to be.
Why the reticence on the part of the arrl to publicly disclose all of the information about these issues?
Jim
WA0LYK
n9dsj
12-09-2007, 01:03 AM
Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 08 2007,16:01)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 08 2007,13:20)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Dec. 08 2007,15:58)]Is it too much to ask our representative organization *what* their position was, *how* they came to the decision to take that position, *how* it was represented to the IARU, and *who* was in support of what within the IARU?
Ask these questions of your Director.
My personal opinion is that the release of the comment by Harrison referred to in this thread was a mistake. Indeed, I believe it was a stupid one. My own inclination would have been to let the issue die -- how was it that Nixon (or one of his henchmen) put it: "Twist slowly in the wind?"
As the late Eric Sevareid might have put it, "The issue is a none issue. The question is, is there a question at all?"
I don't think there is. Much ado about nothing.
Again, why should we have to ask the directors anything. The arrl is representing ALL United States amateurs in front of the IARU. As such, they should be proud enough to tell everyone what issues/positions the arrl proposed, what their position was on those they didn't propose, and how they voted on each issue.
This isn't something we should have to drag out of the arrl staff or out of the directors. This information should be forthcoming with full disclosure. These aren't "secret" society meetings, or at least they are not supposed to be.
Why the reticence on the part of the arrl to publicly disclose all of the information about these issues?
Jim
WA0LYK
Although I rarely post in regards to issues such as this, it seems rather simple to resolve. I am sure, as there is no hidden agenda, that the ARRL will be forthcoming and make public any meeting minutes in regard to this issue. Also would think they would be proud to make any IARU Region II meeting minutes public also. As the ARRL was, for whatever reason, deemed to speak for all US license-holders, I cannot foresee any reason not to make this and all associated documentation public. It is much better to expose all to the disinfectant of sunshine so all can see that any interaction was done openly, with consent and representative of the wishes of all US amateurs as one would expect from a designated representative.
73,
Bill N9DSJ
Quote[/b] (n9dsj @ Dec. 08 2007,20:03)]Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Dec. 08 2007,16:01)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 08 2007,13:20)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Dec. 08 2007,15:58)]Is it too much to ask our representative organization *what* their position was, *how* they came to the decision to take that position, *how* it was represented to the IARU, and *who* was in support of what within the IARU?
Ask these questions of your Director.
My personal opinion is that the release of the comment by Harrison referred to in this thread was a mistake. Indeed, I believe it was a stupid one. My own inclination would have been to let the issue die -- how was it that Nixon (or one of his henchmen) put it: "Twist slowly in the wind?"
As the late Eric Sevareid might have put it, "The issue is a none issue. The question is, is there a question at all?"
I don't think there is. Much ado about nothing.
Again, why should we have to ask the directors anything. #The arrl is representing ALL United States amateurs in front of the IARU. #As such, they should be proud enough to tell everyone what issues/positions the arrl proposed, #what their position was on those they didn't propose, and how they voted on each issue.
This isn't something we should have to drag out of the arrl staff or out of the directors. #This information should be forthcoming with full disclosure. #These aren't "secret" society meetings, or at least they are not supposed to be. #
Why the reticence on the part of the arrl to publicly disclose all of the information about these issues?
Jim
WA0LYK
Although I rarely post in regards to issues such as this, it seems rather simple to resolve. I am sure, as there is no hidden agenda, that the ARRL will be forthcoming and make public any meeting minutes in regard to this issue. Also would think they would be proud to make any IARU Region II meeting minutes public also. As the ARRL was, for whatever reason, deemed to speak for all US license-holders, I cannot foresee any reason not to make this and all associated documentation public. It is much better to expose all to the disinfectant of sunshine so all can see that any interaction was done openly, with consent and representative of the wishes of all US amateurs as one would expect from a designated representative.
73,
Bill N9DSJ
Don't hold your breath.
ab0wr
12-09-2007, 02:55 AM
Lest anyone be confused about what the ARRL considers its responsibility to be as far as representing the amateur radio population in the US please take a close look at the last paragraph of Mr. Harrison's letter:
Quote[/b] ]As one of the 39 Member-Societies of IARU Region 2, the ARRL will, as always, continue to openly work to improve the Region 2 band planning process prior to the next conference and give its members ample opportunity to offer comments and suggestions. Members may provide input to their elected representative (identified on page 15 of QST), or to our Ad-hoc Band Plan Committee and e-mail address that was established in 2006 at bandplan@arrl.org.
In their arrogance, the ARRL has totally disregarded what the bylaws of the IARU specifies as the duties and obligations of the Member-Societies in the IARU.
From the IARU Constitution:
Quote[/b] ]BYLAWS OF THE INTERNATIONAL AMATEUR RADIO UNION
2. An applicant for membership shall include the following in its application:
a) a copy of its constitution or other governing document;
b) a list of its officers, the total number of its members, the number of members who are licensed to transmit in the Amateur Service, and the number of licensed operators in its country and/or separate territory;
c) satisfactory evidence that it:
1) adequately represents the interests of amateurs throughout the country and/or separate territory which it proposes to represent:
Please note carefully that ©(1) doesn't say "represent the interests of the amateurs belonging to the Member-Society". Yet this is what the ARRL, in its arrogance, has perverted its view of who it represents into.
Please also carefully note what the IARU bylaws say about why a Member-Society can be removed from its position:
From Article II:
Quote[/b] ]11. The rights of a Member-Society may not be suspended, nor may membership in the IARU be terminated, unless:
a) The Member-Society has failed to fulfill its duties under this Constitution;
b) The Member-Society has acted contrary to the interests of Amateur Radio or the IARU; or
c) The Member-Society no longer adequately represents the interests of radio amateurs throughout its country and/or separate territory.
Again, the IARU Constitution does not say that the Member-Society can be removed for not representing its members but, instead, "the interests of radio amateurs throughout its country"
The ARRL, by limiting its input concerning issues in front of the IARU to only ARRL members cannot, by definition, be said to be representing the interests of radio amateurs throughout its country since its membership *IS LESS THAN 25% OF THE TOTAL AMATEUR COMMUNITY IN THE US*!
Albert and his cohorts try to minimize this issue as a defensive tactic. Don't be fooled. This is NOT a minor issue.
The PRESIDENT of the ARRL, the IARU Member-Society from the United States, has formally stated in a letter that he is only concerned with representing ARRL members and not the United States amateur community as a whole.
If this doesn't raise the hackles on the back of your neck IT SHOULD!!
tim ab0wr
ab0wr
12-09-2007, 03:06 AM
While the defenders of the ARRL like to try and cast doubt on amateurs being able to find out definitively about what the ARRL did at the IARU convention the truth may actually be quite different.
From the IARU Constitution:
Quote[/b] ]ARTICLE VI -- VOTING BY MEMBER-SOCIETIES
1. In the consideration of proposals brought before the IARU in accordance with this Constitution, each Member-Society shall have one vote.
2. A Proposal may be made by any Member-Society through its regional organization, which shall transmit it to the Administrative Council for publication in the next issue of the Calendar. Publication shall be accompanied by explanatory comment. Proposals also may be made by the regional organizations and the Administrative Council.
3. A Member-Society shall cast its vote in writing so that it is received by the International Secretariat not later than five months after publication of the Calendar containing the proposal. Votes received late shall not be counted.
I will admit that the operating procedures at an IARU convention may be different than normal operation of the body but I suspect that in the case of voting, this guideline in the bylaws are probably followed pretty closely.
If so, someone somewhere should have a copy of the written vote the ARRL provided on the subject of the new IARU Region 2 bandplan.
A copy of that vote should be able to be obtained from someone.
I plan on asking the ARRL for a copy of *their* vote. I will also send a similar request to the IARU directly.
If it turns out that the ARRL voted "YES" on this proposal then I think it would be obvious to everyone that the ARRL disregarded the OVERWHELMING view of the US amateur radio population that was so obviously transmitted to the ARRL in association with the RM-11306 proposal.
This would also be grounds for filing a complaint with the IARU that the ARRL is no longer representing the interests of the United States amateur population.
While I am sure this single incident will not be sufficient to have the ARRL removed from status as a Member-Society of the IARU it will begin to build a formal record with the IARU for future use if the ARRL continues down its current arrogant path.
tim ab0wr
KC9JIQ
12-09-2007, 03:06 AM
Quote[/b] ]The ARRL, by limiting its input concerning issues in front of the IARU to only ARRL members cannot, by definition, be said to be representing the interests of radio amateurs throughout its country since its membership *IS LESS THAN 25% OF THE TOTAL AMATEUR COMMUNITY IN THE US*!
Many ARRL members feel that they are NOT being represented by the organization. SO, if the ARRL is not representing their members, and sure isn't representing the hobby, then WHO are they representing? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
n9dsj
12-09-2007, 03:11 AM
Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Dec. 08 2007,19:55)]Lest anyone be confused about what the ARRL considers its responsibility to be as far as representing the amateur radio population in the US please take a close look at the last paragraph of Mr. Harrison's letter:
Quote[/b] ]As one of the 39 Member-Societies of IARU Region 2, the ARRL will, as always, continue to openly work to improve the Region 2 band planning process prior to the next conference and give its members ample opportunity to offer comments and suggestions. Members may provide input to their elected representative (identified on page 15 of QST), or to our Ad-hoc Band Plan Committee and e-mail address that was established in 2006 at bandplan@arrl.org.
In their arrogance, the ARRL has totally disregarded what the bylaws of the IARU specifies as the duties and obligations of the Member-Societies in the IARU.
From the IARU Constitution:
Quote[/b] ]BYLAWS OF THE INTERNATIONAL AMATEUR RADIO UNION
2. An applicant for membership shall include the following in its application:
a) a copy of its constitution or other governing document;
b) a list of its officers, the total number of its members, the number of members who are licensed to transmit in the Amateur Service, and the number of licensed operators in its country and/or separate territory;
c) satisfactory evidence that it:
1) adequately represents the interests of amateurs throughout the country and/or separate territory which it proposes to represent:
Please note carefully that ©(1) doesn't say "represent the interests of the amateurs belonging to the Member-Society". Yet this is what the ARRL, in its arrogance, has perverted its view of who it represents into.
Please also carefully note what the IARU bylaws say about why a Member-Society can be removed from its position:
From Article II:
Quote[/b] ]11. The rights of a Member-Society may not be suspended, nor may membership in the IARU be terminated, unless:
a) The Member-Society has failed to fulfill its duties under this Constitution;
b) The Member-Society has acted contrary to the interests of Amateur Radio or the IARU; or
c) The Member-Society no longer adequately represents the interests of radio amateurs throughout its country and/or separate territory.
Again, the IARU Constitution does not say that the Member-Society can be removed for not representing its members but, instead, "the interests of radio amateurs throughout its country"
The ARRL, by limiting its input concerning issues in front of the IARU to only ARRL members cannot, by definition, be said to be representing the interests of radio amateurs throughout its country since its membership *IS LESS THAN 25% OF THE TOTAL AMATEUR COMMUNITY IN THE US*!
Albert and his cohorts try to minimize this issue as a defensive tactic. Don't be fooled. This is NOT a minor issue.
The PRESIDENT of the ARRL, the IARU Member-Society from the United States, has formally stated in a letter that he is only concerned with representing ARRL members and not the United States amateur community as a whole.
If this doesn't raise the hackles on the back of your neck IT SHOULD!!
tim ab0wr
So you mean the ARRL represented neither their membership wishes nor the US hams they were supposed to represent?
That supposition would beg the question of who were they bidding for?
This could all be resolved if the ARRL would make public any and all meeting minutes, un-redacted, that pertain to the IARU Region II band plan issues. Why would they not do so??
73,
Bill N9DSJ
wa3vjb
12-09-2007, 03:28 AM
Tim, we already know they voted for it. Harrison, in one of the communications under his signature, said he approved it. I think it was in the response to Newsline and CQ magazine.
Harrison told me in an email that the Board of Directors (the elected, volunteer half of League administration) would prepare for an IARU meeting like the one in September, by developing positions the ARRL delegate(s) would take.
This directly answers the question as to where the political authority rests when a position is stated at the table during deliberations.
We have not been able to learn what these advance positions were, and whether, as a result, we can determine whether Rinaldo acted on his own, outside of those directives, and can be held accountable.
If the board authorized him to propose and endorse the bandwidth overlay, then that shows the ARRL failed to acknowledge the opposition expressed in the similar proceeding at the FCC, which caused them to withdraw their petition.
This dilemma may be why their people are finding it so difficult to respond when confronted.
Another factor, regardless of Rinaldo's role, is why the Region 1 bandwidth overlays were carried over to Region 2, as the League has described.
The Region 1 plan already needed to be adapted to circumstances in Region 2 that differ on both regulatory and operating aspects. Given the hot potato that a bandwidth concept already had become, the League should at least have abstained from a plan it did not intend to support, and at best, would have expressed concern on behalf of U.S. licensees that the concept was not being easily accepted in its first test (at the FCC).
I have not seen any details that point to any clear path.
--Paul/VJB
ab0wr
12-09-2007, 03:33 AM
Following is a copy of an email I just sent to the ARRL requesting an official copy of their written vote at the IARU on the Region 2 bandplan.
I will post their answer, if any, when it is received.
Don't hold your breath tho!
tim ab0wr
Mr. Harrison,
Mr. Frahm,
I want to make it clear up front that I am no longer a dues paying member of
the ARRL. There are many reasons for this that I am addressing in a separate
letter.
As a member of the United States amateur radio population, however, I am very
concerned about the recent bandplan adopted by the IARU for Region 2. I am
also very, very deeply concerned about the representation the ARRL, as the
United States Member-Society, provided to the IARU on this issue.
I have read the statement on the ARRL website concerning this and, frankly, it
does nothing to alleviate my concerns.
According to the IARU Constitution the Member-Society in a country is supposed
to represent all amateurs throughout its country. I quote:
"BYLAWS OF THE INTERNATIONAL AMATEUR RADIO UNION
c) satisfactory evidence that it:
1) adequately represents the interests of amateurs throughout the country
and/or separate territory which it proposes to represent:"
This obligation of the Member-Society simply cannot be accomplished by
purporting to represent only members belonging to the Member-Society as Mr.
Harrison plainly said in the statement on the ARRL website.
The bylaws of the IARU also indicate that the votes cast by the Member-Society
on issues in front of the IARU are supposed to be cast in a written manner.
Reference Article VI, Paragraph 3 for details.
Based on this I as well as being one of the amateur population that the ARRL
is representing at the IARU I would appreciate receiving a copy of the
written vote the ARRL cast on the Region 2 bandplan issue. If an actual copy
of the written vote is not available, an abstract of the vote would be
sufficient. Please forward this information to:
Tim Gorman AB0WR
2225 SE 55th St
Topeka, KS 66609
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Tim Gorman AB0WR
ab0wr
12-09-2007, 03:55 AM
Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Dec. 08 2007,20:28)]Tim, we already know they voted for it. Harrison, in one of the communications under his signature, said he approved it. I think it was in the response to Newsline and CQ magazine.
Harrison told me in an email that the Board of Directors (the elected, volunteer half of League administration) would prepare for an IARU meeting like the one in September, by developing positions the ARRL delegate(s) would take.
This directly answers the question as to where the political authority rests when a position is stated at the table during deliberations.
We have not been able to learn what these advance positions were, and whether, as a result, we can determine whether Rinaldo acted on his own, outside of those directives, and can be held accountable.
If the board authorized him to propose and endorse the bandwidth overlay, then that shows the ARRL failed to acknowledge the opposition expressed in the similar proceeding at the FCC, which caused them to withdraw their petition.
This dilemma may be why their people are finding it so difficult to respond when confronted.
Another factor, regardless of Rinaldo's role, is why the Region 1 bandwidth overlays were carried over to Region 2, as the League has described.
The Region 1 plan already needed to be adapted to circumstances in Region 2 that differ on both regulatory and operating aspects. Given the hot potato that a bandwidth concept already had become, the League should at least have abstained from a plan it did not intend to support, and at best, would have expressed concern on behalf of U.S. licensees that the concept was not being easily accepted in its first test (at the FCC).
I have not seen any details that point to any clear path.
--Paul/VJB
Paul,
I sorry to admit I have not been on the SPAR site for several months. I suspect this has been documented there. That means that my letter to Mr. Harrison and Mr. Frahm will probably be useless if not also wasted.
At this point I am a little vague on how to proceed. I don't know if individual hams can file a complaint with the IARU. I don't know if it would be better for a multitude of US hams to file multiple complaints or if it would be better to try and put together a petition. I suspect a petition would be disregarded unless some methods were implemented to verify signatures on the petition.
I do feel very strongly, however, that some there should be some method of making our displeasure known at the IARU headquarters over this utter disregard of the US amateur population by the ARRL. If we continue to let everything slide then there will never be a record built up to document the ARRL continued abuses of power.
I will go to SPAR tonight and see what is there about this subject.
Thanks for your message.
73,
tim ab0wr
wa3vjb
12-09-2007, 04:07 AM
Harrison wrote:
Quote[/b] ]ARRL representatives did participate in the discussion of the band plan in Committee B/C at the Region 2 Conference in Brasilia in mid-September and I cast the vote on behalf of the ARRL for the plenary meeting to adopt the committee’s recommendation.
It's on this site, Tim, in the "News" section and the "Newsline" posting.
How to proceed?
There's a real need to document who said what, and on what political basis. By that I mean were the positions validated and derived from the sentiment of U.S. licensees.
ab0wr
12-09-2007, 04:11 AM
w3miv:Quote[/b] ]What you fail to realize is, without any proof of all the assertions about what Rinaldo did or did not do, or what Rinaldo might have done or might not have done, all of your assertions are meaningless. They are assumptions based solely on what you want to believe, not on any factual basis of what may or may not have taken place.
According to the IARU Constitution there should be a written record of what