Entire ARRL Bandwidth Proposal Must be Evaluated

[ky5u]

Entire ARRL Bandwidth Proposal Must be Evaluated

Amateurs recently got their first glimpse of the changes #proposed to the ARRL's draft FCC petition seeking regulation of subbands by bandwidth rather than by emission mode (based on undisclosed comments to the League by many Hams). On August 25th of this year, league officials sought comments on the proposal in a press release: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/08/25/1/

At the October Executive Committee meeting, League CEO David Sumner said:
Quote[/b] ]Sumner: ''The Executive Committee found considerable support for the concept of the petition, along with constructive suggestions to reduce both the impact of the changes on current amateur operations, as well as possible unintended consequences."

In reality, no statistics have been released by the ARRL suggesting either approval or rejection of their plan, nor has there been an official poll of League members on the proposal. #In contrast, Amateurs online on QRZ.COM, E-HAM, and other online sources of information have been overwhelmingly against the plan. And while most Amateurs report making constructve suggestions, there has been no synopsis published of the suggestions received by the ARRL.

In the recent press release by the League, the "additions" to the plan were listed as: Quote[/b] ]* Retention of rules permitting automatically controlled digital stations (packet and other digital modes) in narrow HF subbands. The draft petition had proposed dropping these provisions.

* A rule prohibiting so-called semi-automatic digital operation (automatic control in response to a communication initiated by a live operator) on frequencies below 28 MHz where phone is permitted. This addressed a concern that ''robot'' digital stations might take over the phone bands.

* A segment for 3 kHz bandwidth (no phone) emissions at 10.135-10.150 MHz to accommodate existing and planned digital operations.

* Deletion of the word ''continuous'' from the description of test transmissions authorized on most frequencies above 51 MHz.

* Simplification of proposed changes to 97.309 to clarify that FCC-licensed amateur stations may use any published digital code as long as other rules are observed.

Although Mr. Sumner reports that this is not the "last word" on the petition, it would be reasonable to request that the proposed petition be re-drafted with the changes and published again for comment in its entirity. This would allow serious debate in the Amateur community on the proposal and the changes as well as technical evaluation of the plan, evaluation of the fairness of bandwidth allocations, and discussion of any remaining issues. #

As an example, the change allowing 3kHz bandwidth (no phone) at 10.135-10.150 as outlined in the quote above bears more examination. This bandwidth would support six Pactor III channels or thirty Pactor II channels. #What are the technical reasons that, in an already crowded band with limited spectrum, the League would not encourage the use of the more effecient data modes?

A synopsis of discussion here on QRZ.COM seems to center around acknowledgement that the bandwidth plan is not welcomed, and viewed by most as unnecessary. #Even so, a general concensus was reached on what a plan would look like as discussed in an earlier message chain: http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin....=72455. (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=72455.) #The League must also face changing times and allow more direct member input into petitions which go to the FCC. #Ironically, ARRL Officials are quick to ask Amateurs to accept significant changes at an ever increasing rate.

QUOTE: Some concerns are also being raised by sources close to the Executive Committee that they were told to ignore any input from Skip Teller, the vocal dessenting member from the original AD Hoc Committee. #UNQUOTE

Sources? We were "told"? Come on Charlie, that is really a reach.... I have communicated a number of times directly with Skip, but you know that....

73 - Jim

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 28 2004,12:52)]QUOTE: Some concerns are also being raised by sources close to the Executive Committee that they were told to ignore any input from Skip Teller, the vocal dessenting member from the original AD Hoc Committee. #UNQUOTE

Sources? We were "told"? Come on Charlie, that is really a reach.... I have communicated a number of times directly with Skip, but you know that....

73 - Jim
Jim, Charlie,

I also read such a rumor, and I think it was mentioned by a vice-director somewhere, but I considered it as rumor, which, unless confirmed, is all it is.

On the question of being ignored, it is only fair to realize that any suggestions I make, although heavily researched, hopefully logically reasoned, and supported with reliable data when necessary, do not carry any more weight than any other single member might make.

However, it is also true that the mere courtesy of any acknowledgement is usually missing, giving rise to the assumption that the suggestion was summarily dismissed.

I originally summarized the proposed petition as having four main problems:

1. Wideband digital mixing with SSB phone.

2. Autoforwarding being declared illegal and thereby killing off the HF Packet networks.

3. PSK31 being forced down into the CW portion of the band

4. More space will be allocated for the relatively few people who use wide digital modes than for the huge majority of people using SSB phone.

I feel very fortunate, that, after much discussions, ARRL has corrected three out of four of these issues in the forthcoming revised proposed petition.

The only remaining problem, and it is the MAJOR one, is related to PSK31 being forced down into the CW portion of the band, and that is how to achieve separation between unattended operations and attended operations so the huge QRM problem we have will go away.

It would be very unfair to say that my suggestions are completely ignored, even if the Board does not directly acknowledge receipt of any of them, when three out of four were worthy of being acted upon.

I know you are impatient to know what is going to happen to the proposed petition and what is going on currently, but the announcement says the Board will review it again in January, so until then, any final outcome can only be guessed at. However, it certainly does not hurt to continue to discuss ideas and send them to the Division Directors so they are as informed as possible.



Jim is sincere when he says he has communicated a number of times directly with me. As I see the problem, he has mostly heard Winlink's opinions and only heard others from either me or on the forums, and is faced with the very difficult task of deciding just whom to believe.

You might remember one of Jim's earliest posts, when he said the proposed revision was number 11 on his desk, I think I remember, and that he expected numbers like 16, 17, and 18 to appear before he approved anything to be formulated as a petition. I'm sure I do not quote him directly, but that is the jist of what I remember.

Now we are currently discussing whether or not, or how, to achieve a separate space for unattended operations, since they do not mix with attended digital operations any more than they can mix with phone operations, which the Board now sees as undesirable.

Jim is obviously struggling to reconcile what he has been told by Winlink with what most of the rest of feel is a necessary separation from unattended operations. His latest concern was over "Balkanizing" the bands if a separate space was legislated, and we are now discussing why the separate space is necessary in order to keep QRM from greatly increasing, even if it means some "Balkanizing" of the bands.

This is playing out on the current topic, "ARRL's Newest Bandwidth Proposal", which is the best place to follow the discussions and submit idea.

I must say we are very lucky to have Jim willing to listen and willing to learn through these discussions, so let's be patient and let the learning process be completed. After all, he is a basically a phone operator, I think, and digital issues are difficult to comprehend if you do not operate digital modes, and most of the Board members do not operate them on HF either. Obviously this will change as digital activity increases, and I don't mean modes like Pactor-II and Pactor-III, but ones hams use to talk with each other.

Charlie, I'd suggest that all future postings be made on that topic, at least for now, so Jim and everyone else can contribute without having to hunt for which topic to follow.

Your suggestion that the "Entire ARRL Bandwidth Proposal Must Be Evaluated" is a good one, but I don't think we will have an opportunity to do that until after the January Board meeting, and I am sure that meeting output will be published for everyone to comment on before being sent to the FCC as a petition.

After all, a well-constructed petition will find the vast majority in agreement, although there will always be those who feel their interests are compromised too much. The job is to reduce that minority to a very small percentage of the whole in a representative organization like the ARRL.

I apologize for the horribly long post, but I wanted to make it perfectly clear that everyone is working toward the same goal of a good bandplan for the future.

73, Skip KH6TY

[ky5u]

Jim,

After hearing "from the horse's mouth", I removed the entire paragraph. #If I knew it to be false, it would not have been there. I also had emailed you concerning the overall issue and received no response.

Beyond the overal concerns of member approval, if the dialogue with Skip and others remains open, there is true hope that you'll have something to submit to the Commisssion we all can support.

Skip,

I can't tell folks where to post. They will comment where they feel confortable doing so. I can only suggest they follow your lead.

[n4zou]

The ARRL can no longer be trusted to provide input to the FCC for changes to part 97 rules. This origination does not represent a majority of licensed amateur radio operators in this country. This origination does not represent their members. As can be seen by the failed proposal written by the digital ad hock committee where the minority of members not supporting Pactor III mode using Winlink 2000 were effectively removed due to there dissenting input and votes. It is obvious that commercial interests are trying to push this mode and system on the amateur bands. Pactor II and Pactor III are propriety modes used only with SCS TNC's that cost $1000. This prevents most amateur radio operators from monitoring and self-policing of the amateur bands. The software normally used with a SCS Pactor TNC with Winlink prevents monitoring as well. SCS has so far refused to open source there code just enough to allow monitoring with non-SCS hardware or software. Until SCS posts the source code for Pactor II and Pactor III these modes should be removed from use on the amateur bands. Keep propriety modes like Pactor II and Pactor III on the commercial bands. Not being able to monitor any digital mode on the amateur bands opens them up to abuse for illegal purposes like pornography and for-profit business operations.
This is not the only problem the ARRL has in representing the amateur community. Another example is the BPL debacle and no addition to CC&R rules to allow antennas. You could go on and on with the failures of the ARRL. Times have changed and a new origination that is political such as a 527 PAC is now required. When was the last time you saw an advertisement on TV or radio showing the need of amateur radio? You never have! Every now and then you might see a small news article about how local amateur radio operators stepped in and helped the local emergency services with emergency commutations as the normal systems had failed. Take this Hurricane season for an example of this. You should see advertisements for a national amateur radio origination just the same way as the Red Cross and other non-profit originations do. Where is the ARRL shown to the public? You don't unless you go to their Web site and even that is geared to the already licensed amateur radio operator. The ARRL even removed there magazine from bookstore racks years ago. This was the only visible example of the amateur radio society to the general public.

[N5PVL]

AG4YO says:

Quote[/b] ]
Although Mr. Sumner reports that this is not the "last word" on the petition, it would be reasonable to request that the proposed petition be re-drafted with the changes and published again for comment in its entirity. This would allow serious debate in the Amateur community on the proposal and the changes as well as technical evaluation of the plan, evaluation of the fairness of bandwidth allocations, and discussion of any remaining issues.


That sounds reasonable to me.

If I remember correctly, the original "synopsis" of the bandwidth segmentation proposal kinda skipped over a few of the more controversial details. If you went by the synopsis, it sounded just peachy keen. - It was when we examined the document itself that the bad spots started to show.

Since the same Winlink2000 folks who tried to hoodwink the US amateur community on the original proposal are still "in the loop", I would advise a close examination of anything remotely associated with the bandwidth segmentation proposal, the ARES proposal, and anything else tainted by association with the SCS/Winlink2000 folks.

It amazes me that these people are still tolerated by the ARRL after their behavior in the Ad-Hoc committee that produced the original bandwidth segmentation proposal. After going back and un-doing some of the most obvious mischief that was found, the ARRL has turned around and appointed these same SCS/WinLink2000 folks to another Ad-Hoc digital committee that is assessing the various VHF/UHF packet networks.

When the WinLink2000 proposal for ARES was first announced a while back, a representative of the ARRL skipnet talked to these same SCS/Winlink characters to see how the packet net could participate. The SCS/Winlink2000 bigshot told him "No way!" and went on to express his opinion that "All Packeteers are Di**heads."

This is the same guy the ARRL just sent out to ask those "Di**head Packeteers" all around the country to cooperate with him by giving him information about their networks. My advice to US packet ops is to give this group the cold shoulder.

For my part, I can't help but wonder just what's with the ARRL and these SCS/Winlink2000 folks.

Since when did the ARRL tell amateurs what equipment to use, what software to run, and which digital mode to utilize?

Anyway? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Charles, #N5PVL

[WN3DUG]

Quote[/b] ]The ARRL even removed their magazine from bookstore racks years ago. This was the only visible example of the amateur radio society to the general public.

I complained to the ARRL about this before and received a wise remark back about which services I wanted curtailed to keep QST on the newstands.

This is the main way the public can learn about Ham Radio, since you can't even find QST in the libraries anymore. #At least CQ is still there in bookstores!

I think the ARRL is afraid that many people would drop their ARRL membership, if they could get QST at the newstand. #I know I would, especially the way the Board is acting these days.

73, Carl, WN3DUG

No Carl, It was strickly a business decision. The contracts with the magazine wholesalers were such that we were losing about $20,000 per year over returns and the commissions paid. If the demand were in the area of 25 to 50 thousand magazines per month like some of the others you see on the news stand there would have been enough volume to make a profit margin. As it was, we did not sell enough to cover the expenses. Simply good business. Nothing more.

[N5PVL]

Where the smoke blows...

Somebody sent me a copy of the following exchange from the telpac-paclink Yahoo group:

Question:
Quote[/b] ]

-----Original Message-----
From: k7bfl [mailto:k7bfl@arrl.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 18:52
To: telpac-paclink@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [telpac-paclink] Telpac Monitoring


I have a Telpac Station up and running. #Thanks to all who helped enable that to happen.

I can't seem to figure out how to "monitor" or audit the content of the messages, due to the compression of each message; in order to comply with FCC Rules. #Or has that duty been delegated to someone else in the Winlink organization who is able to see the actual words?

Don K7BFL
STM #EWA



Answer:
Quote[/b] ]

----- Original Message -----
From: "k4cjx" <k4cjx@comcast.net>
To: <telpac-paclink@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 9:07 PM
Subject: RE: [telpac-paclink] Telpac Monitoring


Winlink 2000 complies with §97.221 for an Automatically controlled digital station:

F Winlink 2000 complies with §97.109 Station control, for 3rd Party traffic rules:

(e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission.
All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled.

Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219© for 3rd Party traffic Content
Rules:

§97.219© provides protection for licensees operating as part of a message forwarding system. "...the control operators of forwarding stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that violate the rules in this Part are NOT ACCOUNTABLE for the violative communications. They are, however, responsible for discontinuing such communications once they become aware of their presence."


Winlink 2000 complies with §97.309 for data emission codes.

Winlink 2000 complies with Sub-Part E when so designated (i.e.: §97.403 Safety of life and protection of property):
No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radio communication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.




Lots of smoke being blown, as is par for this individual - but notice how the SCS/Winlink clown doesn't actually provide any information that applies to Don's question?

Are you surprised? #I'm not.

That is because the SCS/WinLink2000 clown could care less about actually operating legal - just as long as he can blow smoke and gull the gullible.

This story reminds me of something that happened with my brother, years ago. He had just been invited to join the board of directors for one of our major communications carriers, and we were discussing Ham-Com, a big hamfest located in the Dallas/Farts Worse metropolitan area.

I asked my brother if he had met Greg Jones, then president of TAPR, while he was at Ham-Com.

"Yes I did talk to him for a few minutes." he replied, "The only way the guy could have been more obvious would be for him to have the word "Jerk" tatooed across his forehead."


It's funny how thinking about the SCS/Winlink2000 clown would bring a story like that to mind... # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Charles, #N5PVL

[w5alt]

Thanks, Jim, for pointing out that hams in general don't care about the ARRL and aren't willing to buy enough QST's to make it profitable.

How much did ARRL membership increase during the last 2 years?

73,
Walt, W5ALT

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 29 2004,02:59)]No Carl, It was strickly a business decision. The contracts with the magazine wholesalers were such that we were losing about $20,000 per year over returns and the commissions paid. If the demand were in the area of 25 to 50 thousand magazines per month like some of the others you see on the news stand there would have been enough volume to make a profit margin. As it was, we did not sell enough to cover the expenses. Simply good business. Nothing more.
Jim,

I'd be more than willing to see my ARRL membership increased by additional $0.12 to keep QST available on the newsstands and in the public eye, and I'll bet all other members would not quibble about a $0.12 increase, or even $1.00, for the benefit it might bring.

IMHO, QST of late is better than it ever has been. Kudos for the great job Steve Ford is doing...

- Just my "twelve cents" worth #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Skip

[N5PVL]

W5ALT says:
Quote[/b] ]
Thanks, Jim, for pointing out that hams in general don't care about the ARRL and aren't willing to buy enough QST's to make it profitable.


I looked back in the thread and couldn't find the part where Jim says that.

Are you sure that you are not "interpreting" things just a hair?

Charles, N5PVL

[N5PVL]

KH6TY says:

Quote[/b] ]
I'd be more than willing to see my ARRL membership increased by additional $0.12 to keep QST available on the newsstands and in the public eye, and I'll bet all other members would not quibble about a $0.12 increase, or even $1.00, for the benefit it might bring.

IMHO, QST of late is better than it ever has been. Kudos for the great job Steve Ford is doing...


Yeah.... - What HE says!

I think that pulling QST off of the stands was a sucker bet, but you could fill the library of congress with what I don't know about the publishing business.

Stuff I do ends up being mentioned in QST every now and then, and how am I supposed to easily pick up extra copies now, to pass around to non-ham friends and relatives?

- And all this time, I thought the bookstore was screwing up.

Charles, #N5PVL

[kh6ty]

Charles, you can still order extra copies of QST from ARRL, as well as older issues, but that is not very convenient, and it is very sad to see QST disappear from the shelves and CQ is still there. I wonder what the economics of CQ are... CQ is also now in 4-color format, and, with no membership fees to rely on, and I assume they must have to make a profit on advertisement revenue, subscription sales, and rack sales only.

I, too, thought our local Barnes and Noble was just sold out - didn't think to ask why there were no QST issues on the racks...

[N3NL]

Hello,

We need to make sure of the following aspects in
any bandwidth-based amateur radio regulations:

1. Hams must not be required to measure their
bandwidth.

2. Traditional amateur radio modes must be
protected.

3. New hams should be allowed to build and
operate AM transmitters on the HF bands. #This is
a great way to learn hands-on electronics.

73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL

[N5PVL]

I'd like to thank N3NL for getting us back on topic.

If it were up to me, I would start up the painfully code/nocode-like process of debating and finally establishing an upper bandwidth limit.

Check out the two "Bandwidth Segmention" plans illustrated below:

http://uspacket.org/images/bandwidth.jpg

When it gets right down to it, this is the choice we are looking at.

Narrower slots will encourage digital innovation in order to squeeze out better throughput.

Allowing wider slots really only represents an ineffective band-aid on our present level of digital technology, and using those wider slots will slow down, not speed up our progress in this area - by greatly reducing the number of hams ( including experimentors ) that can utilize our bit of spectrum.

In simpler terms: Assigning more and more spectrum to digital signals is an unacceptable response to our desire for better performance, most particularly on HF.

From both a technical and social standpoint, allowing wider signals will tend to bring us more liability than asset. - They just don't deliver a reasonable bang for the buck. Yes, they can deliver marginally better throughput right now - but at a ruinious price.

I am working of course upon the two assumptions that we do not have extra spectrum to throw away, and that we hope to accomodate more, not less hams on the air in the future.

Charles, ( please excuse my cruddy graphics ) #N5PVL

[W9WHE]

You don't really think that the ARRL "elite" give a damn what the membership thinks ....do you?

W9WHE

[W9WHE]

"Thanks, Jim, for pointing out that hams in general don't care about the ARRL and aren't willing to buy enough QST's to make it profitable".

I don't know where this quote came from...but it is certainly factual. After all, only about 20% of hams can be counted as ARRL members. Said differently, about 80% of hams refuse to join!

And, if ARRL split membership from QST subscription....I would venture to say that ARRL membership would DECLINE by HALF!

W9WHE

[nt7c]

Now this is good!

My experience has been that QST is not the magazine to give to a prospective ham. For someone that is curious about ham radio the magazine seems too focused on technical jargon (for the sake of jargon?), contest results, and product reviews that don't say anything in clear language (can't offend an advertizer). An example? Reread the review of the Yaesu FT-7100M. Is there anything there in clear language that would tell a new to ham radio licensee that this radio was an intermod dog? That the frequency dial detents are insufficient to prevent unintentional changes of frequency? Or that it was designed for a car with right-hand drive?

W9WHE - I would love to see the annual membership split from QST subscription. I would like QST to be completely self-financing and profitable by itself. I probably would not subscribe.

I believe that the ARRL has done some good in their representing ham radio. They have also come up with a few terrible ideas. In general, the good has outweighed the bad for me. Who better represents amateur radio? K1MAN?

It is mentioned that only 20% of ham licensees are members of the League. Do you think that 20% of gun owners are members of the NRA? And here is a group that is so politically focused that they can get legislation to protect 'cop killer' bullets, an expiriation date in legislation that tries to limit the capacity of a magazine, and no background checks for sales to anyone at a gun show (just as long as the seller isn't a registered dealer).

Considering the general frugality of hams, I'm surprised that many hams are members. Why do we sell our used equipment on eBay instead of swap meets? Because we think we can get more. Why do we buy at swap meets instead of eBay? Because we can get it for less. And yet, with a straight face, we complain that the quality of swap meets are going down hill. Face it, most hams are cheap. And the majority of those are proud of it.

I believe that the League membership would actually go up, not down if QST was unbundled from membership. I would like to see the League become politically more active. But I ask how many League members make large contributions when political action is required? If our membership were as dedicated and committed to protecting our hobby as the NRA membership is, we would be a force in the halls of Congress.

Sorry to get so far off-topic. But everything comes with a cost, even the protection of our hobby.

73's
Moe
nt7c

[n0nwo]

some thing I found interesting about the ARRL. If you don't oin there union, and pay their dues, they will not listen to you. They do not represent ALL us amateures, just the union membership. The following is a quote from a e-mail I received from ARRL midwest director In responce to a concern I had.

Quote[/b] ]I understand that it bothers you that ARRL does not have such a written policy. While I am sympathetic to the concerns of all radio amateurs, as a director of the ARRL I am naturally more receptive to the inputs from active ARRL members (I see you have not been an ARRL member since December 31, 1993!). I encourage you to join ARRL so we can work together to improve and preserve Amateur Radio.

73,

Wade Walstrom W0EJ
Director, ARRL Midwest Division

My responce was this...

Quote[/b] ]So the fact that I am not currently a member means we can't work together??? The reason I have not been a member for so long has nothing to do with political views, but economics. Quite frankly, for many years, I just did not have $30 left over after paying bills at the end of the month. I can now (actually the last three years) afford to join again but often just forget to. So let me turn the tables on you. Is the ARRL only a voice for club members or for ALL radio amaterues in the united states. You say if I join, you can work with me. I say, work with me and I can guarentee will not forget to renew ever again!



The reply was most interesting

Quote[/b] ]My point was this --- I am elected by the members of the ARRL Midwest Division
to represent them on the ARRL Board of Directors. Therefore, my first
responsibility is to the members of the Midwest Division and, as a result, they
are my first priority. If there are others I can assist, great! These are my
priorities as a director.


So to bring this back to topic, the ARRL stance is this. If you don't pay your bribe money, you have no say, your opinions will not be taken to account. So pay your 30 pieces of silver, or shut up and get mowed over. Iguess SCS/EINLINK pays a little more bribe money than the average member. No wonder the ARRL does not represent the majority of American Amateures.

Minton -- n0nwo

[K3UD]

The QST/ newstand issue is an interesting one.

CQ and 73 (when it was being published) were always available around here in several different locations. CQ is still available. I noticed that QST is still available in some ham stores like HRO.

The CQ single copy distribution must be profitable, or they may be subsidizing it.

Wayne Green used to recruit distribution agents to get 73 into different venues and had a rather good wholesale rate to the agents and vendors. I don't know how CQ does it.

I agree that QST should be out there. It used to be at the local Kroger, Arbor Books, Books A Million and Borders right in the computer / electronics section.

This is the most widely read amateur radio journal. but if no one knows about it or does #not see it.....


73
George
K3UD

[ky5u]

Minton,

Quote[/b] ]If you don't pay your bribe money, you have no say, your opinions will not be taken to account.

If you read all these messages concerning the ARRL, you'll see that members here are complaining that our opinions are not taken into account. Don't feel so bad!

[wa3vjb]

Representation usually follows input from a group's constituency. A closed-door Board Meeting asking a few guys to come up with a way to promote "digital" is not representation, it is unilateral fiat.

No one but a few buffs within Newington's political structure have asked for this. When challenged, top leadership is mute or vanishes.

Service is not linked to membership; my "director" refused to discuss his thinking, or even whether he would support or reject such a proposal. I am a member.

Meantime, I see the number of paid memberships is now down to about 130,000 (see the USPS certification form in the latest issue).

W9WHE's stand looks more and more appealing.

(update) Better yet -- if this threatened petition ever moves ahead, let's get the electric power industry to fight it, since digital RF signals would undoubtedly cause far more of a headache for BPL than the weak-kneed and ineffective noisemaking the ARRL made against it.

Maybe we can get the utilities to Petition the FCC for a ban on hobbyist digital RF on the shortwave ham bands. Maybe someone should tip them off immediately that a few buffs at that moribund little non-profit group in Connecticut are at it again.

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Oct. 29 2004,23:08)]Meantime, I see the number of paid memberships is now down to about 130,000 (see the USPS certification form in the latest issue).

BTW, on what page is the USPS certification form in the latest QST?

On page 9 of the November QST, it is stated, "Of, by and for the radio amateur," the ARRL numbers in its ranks the vast majority of active amateurs in the nation...."

I believe there are about 660,000 FCC- licensed hams in the US. If 130,000 consititue the "vast majority", then is it correct to conclude that the number of active hams has to be much less than 260,000?

Is ARRL truly "of, by and for the radio amateur", or only those radio amateurs that exert tight political influence over the ARRL somehow?

On September 3, the following was posted on the Winlink servers by K4CJX:

"2. Since 30 meters is now successfully using a digital bandwidth well over 500 Hz, and since the FCC has already accepted it, and without SSB of any kind, why can't we just use the space provided by Part 97.221 (or even more,) and continue our operations there."

On October 22, Dave Sumner made the following statement in the ARRL Letter regarding additions to the proposed petition:

"* A segment for 3 kHz bandwidth (no phone) emissions at 10.135-10.150 MHz to accommodate existing and planned digital operations."

"* A rule prohibiting so-called semi-automatic digital operation (automatic control in response to a communication initiated by a live operator) on frequencies below 28 MHz where phone is permitted. This addressed a concern that "robot" digital stations might take over the phone bands."

It is well known that NO phone has ever been allowed on 30m because the band is too small to support 3 KHz-wide signals. Now the ARRL is claiming that 3 KHz-wide digital signals are OK, but phone is not.???

If it is assumed that the expanded space for digital is for "planned digital modes", and not just to give away more frequencies to their Winlink buddies (less than 1% of the FCC-licensed hams), by taking them away from everyone else (99% of the FCC-licensed hams), then why isn't the ARRL intending to add "* A rule prohibiting so-called semi-automatic digital operation (automatic control in response to a communication initiated by a live operator) on the narrow 30 meter band?"

Just why is ARRL always dancing every time Winlink says, "Dance!"?

"Actions speak louder than words", ARRL.

[NY7Q]

How did this go from Bandwidth discussion to QST not on the newstands?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Qst is trash and so is ARRL

[wa3vjb]

Skip, I just happened to find it buried on the inside crack of Pg. 158, Nov. 2004 issue. It tells us more than what the little club in Newington probably wishes for us to know as regards the current state of "representation." #Year-to-year comparisons (which would be available in each November's issue) provide a trendline.

So, let's see, they make a point out of their policy that #"Membership and QST cannot be separated." #(pg.5, right side column, not far from where they say they no longer "warrant the products ... herein," which I presume includes ARRL goods and services.)

But I digress. #The inseparable membership/subscription thing allows us to look at USPS Form 3526, Line 15, "Extent and Nature of Circulation," and conclude by their own accounting that they have circulation just under 133,000.

Some family memberships would inevitably be involved, where a girl who becomes a licensed ham might get her sister into the hobby and join the ARRL (yeah, real likely) on a common subscription. The postal form would not reflect a "group" subscription, making the number of actual members higher than the subscription tally.

On the other hand, these subscription numbers are not limited to licensed amateurs, since having a ticket is not a prerequisite to getting the magazine. Bernhard Goetz (NY Subway Vigilante, 20 years ago in December) has reportedly been an ARRL member, for example, but he's not a ham.

So deduct a certain number from the member/subscription tally, since only licensed hams are considered "full" members for purposes of including them in our ad hoc committee discussion here about League representation.

I swear, it gets as bad as figuring out a tax form to determine the state of malaise, statistically, at the ARRL. The bottom line, pardon the pun, is that these League administrators, elected and paid staff, need a few good political slaps to wake them up.

Here's hoping more and more licensed, active hams reject their practice of closed-door regulatory deliberation and subsequent dictatorial rulemaking proposals. It today's world of instant electronic communications it is very easy to solicit input, build concensus, and either validate or dispute the need for proposals like this one. It does NOT count to cook up such a scheme, as done here, and present it to people for their reactions. How backward is that!

Even their premise is faulty that such a fundamental overhaul is needed to coordinate our modes and activities.

You may also have noticed Sumner failed to acknowledge the widespread opposition provoked by this threatened petition, and also failed to note the wide variety of general interest, ad hoc committees that quickly formed and continue to stand ready to oppose the idea fronted by a few buffs within their group.

Note: As mentioned on another thread, the concept of an "ad hoc" committee to develop regulatory proposals is dangerous and irresponsible for the League to rely upon, for just the reasons you have eloquently pointed out. The League has no standards to ensure ad hoc committee members represent the spectrum of views on behalf of those a move would affect. Indeed, every single one of the discussion threads on QRZ.com include wider numerical participation and a broader set of qualified views than the few guys "picked" to promote digital on behalf of the League's political structure.

[ku4qw]

I think the ARRL has long out lived it's usefulness to Amature Radio. No longer is it's best interest what you and I get out of Ham Radio, but it is, what ham radio can do for them, and what they want it to do is generate revenue.
I think with out they ARRL, yes there still would be Ham Radio, yes there still would be all the Bandwidth we have today, maybe more, yes we would still have youth, maybe more.
The only way you can voice your-self to the ARRL is with your money. Don't give it to them.

I support This Message, and my vote does count, but I see no reason to pay ARRL to pretend I support Ham Radio more than the next guy.

Join me today, and vote for me as the all powerful zar of Radio US...

[n4zou]

I had the sneaking suspicion that ARRL members made up a very small minority of licensed amateur radio operators.
Again, it's time we started a new and modern origination to promote amateur radio. The public should see us in national advertisements promoting our public service work at no cost to the government. When your neighbor drives by your house they should be impressed by your selfless service in erecting expensive antenna systems and investing in equipment that allows emergency commutation in times of disaster, not an ugly blight on the neighborhood. The new origination must be political in nature. The FCC is no longer a technical government service, it has gone political and we MUST do the same. It's more than internal fights over bandwidth use, modes and membership. We need to become the NRA of amateur radio. Leave the ARRL in place as a magazine and book publisher. The new origination will be Internet based and open membership to all. We will need donations from everyone, just like the Red Cross and Salvation Army. And everyone should see us like the Red Cross and Salvation Army. When disaster commutation is required it shows up under the banner of the new origination and everyone that sees it knows your providing a way to get help to those who need it, not just some strange bunch of people to be avoided. Even unlicensed service like FRS or CB can be useful. A FRS radio equipped person directing traffic in the parking lot of the shelter can help out and that trucker with an empty trailer could deliver needed supplies to any location along the way he was headed to anyway.

[n0nwo]

So here is a thought. Since the ARRL does not listen to members and non members alike, and they have in fact become a small club of elite powers to be; dictating terms to ALL us amateurs, How do we do away with them once and for all? Two things come to mind, but they require a lot of time money and dedication.

1. Gather all disenfranchised hams together to donate money to hire a lawyer, or lawyers, to challenge the legitimacy of ARRL in court. the fact that CSC/winlink has a conflict of interest in decision making is a good place to start. Add to that, the fact that they claim to represent the majority of hams when in reality, the figures are far less than 20%, (when one takes into account the ARRL routinely ignores members and non members alike) demands that the ARRL be removed as a legal representative for amateurs in Washington DC and with the FCC.

2. Form a new group that is truly democratic that will truly represent ALL amateurs whether they join or not. ALL voices MUST be considered valid.

I for one have more time on my hand than any one person should have and would be delighted to put it to use in this endeavor. HOWEVER... to be honest, I ain't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed so would rely on the brain pool represented here: among other places. As an example, I was at first suckered in to believing the latest proposal of band width was a good idea, until you folks who are in the know, educated me. Also I do not have much spare cash but could probably come up with about $30 or so a month to help with legal cost and full page adds in news papers and magazines.

It would be a long fight, and very expensive but I believe it is doable. So what's your thoughts? Can we do it? Maybe we are powerless to do anything, but I like to think we could do more than sit around and bitch.

Minton -- n0nwo

[N5PVL]

KH6TY Says:

Quote[/b] ]
Just why is ARRL always dancing every time Winlink says, "Dance!"?


Yes, I wonder about that, too. In my experience, that kind of behavior indicates some level of corruption.

I do not consider it "ARRL bashing" either, by the way, to point out and facilitate the cleaning out of pockets of corruption that sometimes appear in the best of organizations.

This particular corruption, IMHO will be found to trace back to the DHS emergency communications-related grant money that recently become available.

This windfall for responsible amateurs who are dedicated to providing emergency services has also proved to be a windfall for opportunists, scammers and other undesirables.

I have not seen any indication that ARRL staff is on the ball, in this respect. In fact, it looks like they've fooled around and gotten involved in something they shouldn't have.

As long as ARRL continues to dance every time SCS/Winlink says, "Dance!" this mousy smell of corruption will persist.

For my part, it seems like the ARRL should spend less time generating Ad-Hoc digital/bandwidth committees, and put somebody on the job looking out for DHS grant-related corruption instead.

Amateur Radio does not need a big scandal right now - and that's what we will end up dealing with if the present situation continues.

Charles, #N5PVL

[ky5u]

NY7Q,

Quote[/b] ]How did this go from Bandwidth discussion to QST not on the newstands Qst is trash and so is ARRL?

You posted before reading the whole chain, didn't you? Nobody said QST is trash, in fact just the opposite. #The issue with QST not being on the newstand is that it isn't there for prospective amateurs to see. We believe it is good enough to be a great printed ambassador for our service.

On the ARRL - Had you read the article you would have seen that the two issues are the bandwidth proposal AND that the league doesn't poll members when it does something like this. #Please don't try to pidgeonhole us into some neat caracature in your mind. The folks posting here for the most part really care about the League and this subject. #When we have to be critical of the League, there is always the chance that we'll get "death to the ARRL" posts as this is a public message system.

The habit of dismissing discussions with excuses like "discussing CW is a religious debate", or as "League Bashing" (two I commonly hear from the League) are just that----excuses. #They seek to release the person who made the statement from the work involved in a good debate on the issue. They are intended to dismiss a discussion as a waste of time. #

Please understand, 7Q, that I mean no personal insult. #Please join in with your defense of League policy if you wish. But don't judge our motives for wanting our opinions heard.

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Oct. 30 2004,07:30)]Skip, I just happened to find it buried on the inside crack of Pg. 158, Nov. 2004 issue. It tells us more than what the little club in Newington probably wishes for us to know as regards the current state of "representation." #Year-to-year comparisons (which would be available in each November's issue) provide a trendline.
Good job finding this!

Here are what I found for the last 5 years:


Year-#Copies-Drop-#Subscribers-Drop-Page

November 2000-174430-na-131211--1347-151
November 2001-171338-3092-132558-1854-172
November 2002-168044-3294-130704- 457-164
November 2003-155982-12062-126133-1861-144
November 2004-155303-679-124272-na-158

Here is an idea of the growth.

KF7VY growth charts in 1999 (http://www.hamradio-online.com/1999/aug/growth.html)

To determine how many ARRL members represent the "vast majority" of "active" US-licensed radio amateurs, we need to know how many of the licensed radio amateurs are "active". I don't know where to find that information, or how it might be quantified.

In the end, it does not matter, because regardless of ARRL possibly inflated claims, the members respresent only about 20% of FCC licensed radio amateurs, and if KF7VY's data is correct, and I think it probably is, then half of the licensed hams are on VHF and not on HF.
Besides, any rule-making ARRL convinces the FCC to do affects ALL licensed radio amateurs, and 80% are not ARRL members.

The ARRL Board members have each received three separate requests from me just to discuss the repeal of Part 97.221, Subpart C, and I have received not one single acknowledgement from any Board member!, nor do the Board minutes refelect any discussions.

The latest one is here: A Simple Solution to Pactor QRM (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/simplesolution.htm)

Since this only involves simply relocating the current Winlink frequencies to a different, contiguous, space, and will not dimish their network capacity (unless they persist in using Pactor-III which is a specrum hog for email and they need five times the space that Pactor-II needs), there is no reason the Board should not even discuss the proposal, unless there is a widespread move to protect Winlink against all challenges, and I believe there is, and I can name the people that strong circumstantial evidence says are responsible, but I will save that for later when it can be put to really effective use.

Basically, there is absolutely no doubt that I, and the rest of the members as well, are the object of severe stonewalling, as represented in one case, by the ARRL failure to make the results of bandwidth@arrl.org available to everyone, and just keeps repeating the ARRL spin.

Jim Haynie has now confirmed publicly that he will not even present a request to the Board, with the excuse, "They always change their minds". Not even present a request?, and has been silent on suggesting what access to the Board everyone but Winlink has except through the Division Directors, and they always remain silent, as if they had been instructed from Headquarters to do just that.

After trying so hard to work with the ARRL, and just being stonewalled as a result, we have no choice but to challenge the ARRL with convincing facts and arguments before the FCC, and I am already prepared to do that, but it would be much more effective to have the support of an organization or identifiable group of quite a few thousand hams than to do it all alone. If the group were large enough, it could claim to represent the "vast majority" of the FCC-licensed hams.

If you have any suggestions how to accomplish this, please let them be known.

We DO need a new organization that truly represents all radio amateurs, and not just the 1% favored ones, and I'd like to be a charter member...

73, Skip KH6TY

[ky5u]

You know, I have found out over the years that when I hear someone make logical arguments that are dismissed with little or no consideration that there is usually a motive involved (on the part of the person not listening).

Ensuring that automatic stations don't interfere with nornmal voice/data/CW QSOs is such a common sense thing that there should not even be a debate about it. So WHY would Jim and the ARRL be so adamant about not supporting the idea?

The other thing I have found over time is that in an organization that when obvious common sense is ignored indicating a motive, the motive in 90% of the cases is unethical in some way shape or form. #Organizations have the responsibility to their members to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. They way this is done is by being open and above board with all business. #Even with good intentions, club officers can appear to be doing something unethical by the way they handle an issue.

What will it take for the ARRL to survuve?

I think amateurs have a trust issue with the League now. #The way you develope trust is to open the komono and do your business in the sunlight. To survive, the ARRL will need to be more open. #If it were my task to accomplish, I would:

1. Immediately publish a poll in QST on the hot subjects of the time like telegraphy testing, promotion of Techs to general, this bandwidth proposal, enforcement, etc. Anyone could photocopy or cut out the poll, fill it in and mail it in paying the postage. #One vote per valid call, have a member and non-member checkblock, but encourage ALL amateurs to share their views.

2. Publish the results. If there are any clear mandates that members have and the non-members seem to agree that contradict any ARRL action in progress, I would cease the action and publicize it. #Likewise I would institute action on the clear mandates.

3. I would ask all Directors to answer EVERY email they get and avoid "form responses".

4. I would nominate a committee including critics of the ARRL to make reccommendations on what other changes should be made. #I know all of the suggestions may not be practical, but I'd reach an agreement on the top few of them with the committee. I would also work with them on a way to ensure members had the big say in ARRL actions, but a formula for including non-members ideas.

5. I would open up an inexpensive "special" membership without QST. I would also keep the current membership method as standard. #Money from the "special" members could be used to get QST back on the newstands.

6. I would print an "orientation brochure" to be distributed to every new amateur in the ranks on exam night if possible. #It would contain "fill in the blanks" for local club names, local repeater freqs/tones, local volunteer Elmers contact info, local club meeting info, and a list of equipment sellers and numbers (they could sponser the brochure). #The brochure would have #simple "basic steps to get on the air". #And yes, the last page or back of the sheet would be an ARRL membership form with the option of "special" or "regular" member. I would go so far as to print an extra generic membership form that the new amateur could fill in the name of any local club and use to join.

7. I would encourage all League sponsered clubs to host one weekly (or more) rag chew sessions on a dormant local repeater. Hopefully this would result in at least two weekly events that new amateurs could look forward to.

8. I would act faithfully on the will of the membership. #If something came up and there was not time for a poll, hopefully I'd be familiar with past trends from the membership and could act on their behalf. #BUT, I would follow the action up with a poll and if I was wrong, I would go back and fix my action.

9. I would continue the many fine programs of the ARRL that further the hobby they are doing now. #I would scrutinize all programs with a simple question, "Does this serve Amateur Radio?". #I would scutinize all "brick and mortar" holdings and ensure they answer the same question in the affirmative.

10. I would get all the above accopmlished with existing officers if possible. Most people want to do the right thing and these folks should have the chance.

I have actually been involved with TWO organizations that had trust issues with the public. #I had the opportunity to lead efforts to fix the problems and did by opening up the doors to sunlight and involving as many people in the decisions as possible. #Both organizations now flourish with exceptional reputations in their communities. #The ideas above are not new. #They simply require the will to "do the right thing" above all else.

Paul, I know how lathered up you can get so here is something to think about over the weekend. As of yesterday (per AH0H) there were 672,373 amateur licenses. As of midnight last night (when our computer updates) we had 157,217 members. #Now, we know that 53% of amateurs are 55 or older. How many of the 672,373 are still alive? We do not know due to the 12-year cycle of license. Our best guess using other measuring methods is that somewhere in the neighborhood of 325,000 are active during the year. Some just little, some everyday. Using another survey of those that are on the air, 82% are League members. Obviously those who work HF are in the majority.

Now you also mentioned ad-hoc committees. Actually using ad-hoc committees is quite effective where you need to do or know something but not actually establish a permanent committee such as the Administration and Finance Committee or the Programs and Services Committee. The ad-hoc does it job and is dissolved. On an ad-hoc there is a board member to serve as liaison to the board and a staff member to serve as liaison to the HQ staff. Once they submit their report to the full board, the board members have the opportunity to change, modify or comment. Then it may or may not be submitted as a motion. If it is submitted as a motion, it must have a second. Once seconded, there is a discussion period where the pros and cons are aired. It takes eight directors to pass a motion from the floor. If it is a by-law, it takes either two-thirds or three-fourths depending on the amount of notice given the full board.

Skip you should know that Paul is an advocate of using up to 15 KHZ of bandwidth for AM and I do understand your position is to do more with less.

Charlie, I wrote the above before I had a chance to read your post. Not bad ideas at all. I guess I have to ask the question though, how do you pay for all of this? The democratic system is in place. Convince your director to make motions on some of your ideas. Or, run for director yourself and as you say, work from within.

Skip, you can and do have the right to file a petition with the FCC as all of us do. File it, with your arguments. I have done so as an individual and the FCC adopted my motion.

I hope this is helpful.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[n0nwo]

Skip, you already know how I feel. I would love to be a charter member, if the group will have me.

What we need first is a new thread, or better yet, a web site where this can be discussed in detail. We need someone who can set up data bases to track responses and eliminate duplicate inputs from any one person on any one issue.

Then we need to get the word out. Start at the local level at club meetings. Get web site info in as many local club news letters as possible. Encourage EVERYONE'S input. That includes the staunchest ARRL supporters. Their voice is just as valid and they should not be rail roaded.

This discussion should take place over a years time and should include; mission statement, frame work of the organization, by laws, membership , election rules, policy making rules, rules on dialog between officers and amateur operators (member and non-members alike) and show how we will better represent ALL U.S. and Canadian amateurs, in comparison with the ARRL.

We need lawyers to volunteer their time for advice on every thing from corporate structure, to fundraising, to lobbying and etc. After this gets off the ground, one would hope we could hire at least some of these lawyers full time. But for the time being, this is an all voluntary army. (we might even need a discussion to decide how it is decided who is hired as paid staff, legal or other wise.

We need to discuss the issues, form a small group of individuals to consolidate the information, and bring it back to the group to see they got it right. send it back to the small group if needed for revision and then hit the ground running. That is a lot of work in a years time, but it can be done.

That is as far as my thinking takes me for now. I am not a lawyer, I am not technical minded, but would like to help represent the appliance operators like myself, no matter what their license status, views, or disposition towards the ARRL; and would like to help do some of the research, e-mailing and grunt work.

Minton Miller -- n0nwo

[n0nwo]

Just another thought about starting a new representative group. Some polling needs to be done from all over the country. We need to put one or more polls together, get local club participation, and phone calling for those like me who tend to miss most club meetings. I have one of those "One Rate" long distance calling plans so long distance calls is not an issue for me. I am sure that is the same for many other hams. That could save a lot of time in gathering information and putting it in to a data base for all to see.

Minton Miller -- n0nwo

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 30 2004,11:17)]Skip, you can and do have the right to file a petition with the FCC as all of us do. File it, with your arguments. I have done so as an individual and the FCC adopted my motion.

I hope this is helpful.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Jim,

Thanks for the advice, and if my very deeply researched, and well-supported suggestions (with data that nobody even challenges - but just ignores) continue to go totally without comment, I will have no choice but to go it alone, but does it have to come to this, after I have spent 50 years in ham radio believing that the ARRL works for all the membership and not just for special interests?

Everybody here has tried honestly to educate the phone operator in you about what our concerns are regarding CW and person-to-person digital communications so you understand what those concerns are, but when we ask you to take that understanding to the Board, because we are totally ignored, you refuse (honestly, I am thankful to note) to help out, so we continue to be frustrated trying just to be heard, because even our President will not help.

I am not supid enough, nor egotistical enough, to think that just because I personally offer a suggestion it should given any more attention than any other individual's suggestion, but when everthing I submit is totally ignored by my own representative Director, three times, preventing me from even being heard, while Winlink gets persentation privileges before the Board, with no opposing viewpoints allowed, except after the fact, what am I to conclude?

To help ARRL fight the implementation of BPL, I wrote to my congressman, Lindsey Graham, and he at least had the courtesy to write back (not a form letter, either) and promise to let my opinion be heard if he had a chance to do so. Of course, I do not expect for my opinion to be selected over the majority, but I do expect to be heard and not ignored, as has been the case with ARRL.

So, I will ask you again, as President, even if you do not "care a whit" about unattended digital modes (the rest of us do, because it is ruining our ham radio experience), will you tear down this Berlin Wall, and forward my "Simple Solution" to the Board again, and insist on the Board having a dialog about it, rather than just completely ignoring it in order to protect Winlink from any inconvenience. I am open to suggestions how it can be improved, and expanded, if justifiable, and so is everyone else (except Winlink, or course), but I am not open to further stonewalling such as the ARRL (Board and Officers collectively) have subjected me and my fellow radio amateurs to so far.

All everyone wants is to be heard, and to see unattended operations of all kinds (automatic and "semi-automatic") restricted to one space so we can avoid them and they do not pop up everywhere on top of our QSO's.

If Winlink has convinced you that emergency communications and "health and safety" communications take precedence over everything else, I refer you to the latest ARRL letter, in which the FCC is quoted as saying:

"We similarly do not find that Amateur Radio frequencies warrant the special protection afforded frequencies reserved for international aeronautical and maritime safety operations," the Commission said. "While we recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist in providing emergency communications," the FCC added. It described typical amateur operations as "routine communications and hobby activities."

You have already refused once to present my request to the Board, and I appreciate your honesty and candor. So, let me ask the question in another way - will you just forward my Simple Solution to the Board again, provide any new insight you have gained from this forum, let us know any reasons why the Board thinks it is a bad idea, if any, and provide us a way to have some dialog on the subject? Or, do you insist that we must part company by saying, "See you in court?" God forbid that you want it to come to this...

Simple Solution (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/simplesolution.htm)

73, Skip KH6TY

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (n0nwo @ Oct. 30 2004,12:14)]Just another thought about starting a new representative group. #Some polling needs to be done from all over the country. We need to put one or more polls together, get local club participation, and phone calling for those like me who tend to miss most club meetings. #I have one of those "One Rate" long distance calling plans so long distance calls is not an issue for me. #I am sure that is the same for many other hams. #That could save a lot of time in gathering information and putting it in to a data base for all to see.

Minton Miller #-- # n0nwo
Minton,

Thanks for your offers of support. Let's hope Jim Haynie can keep this from being necessary, but if he cannot, then we will have get together and proceed. I even have some definite ideas for using an existing magazine as the flagship publication.

As far as polls are concerned, I have seen several on this forum. Does anyone know how you do this? I'd like to see a couple of unbiasedly-worded polls to see what support some of our ideas have, compared to what ARRL claims.

For example, ARRL has already hinted about changes to the proposed petition. It would be helpful to know what kind of support the proposed petition would have if those changes were implemented.

It would also be helpful to know how many people feel a separate space for unattended operations of all types is desired, or if the current situation is acceptable.

We just have to be very careful to word the poll questions in such a way as to avoid any charges of "stacking the deck" to make the poll come out as we would like it to. Credibility is something we need to maintain, as it is something ARRL does not seem to have much of right now.

If the ARRL can return to the representative organization it used to be, then a competing organization would not be needed, but if not, it definitely will be needed. The only problem is that we do not have a year to put together an organization to oppose the proposed ARRL petition, or what still needs to be "fixed" to prevent it from being biased in favor of only 1% of the FCC-licensed hams.

I cannot help being amazed at how the ARRL can complain about not being invited to the BPL trials, and not having their comments being given sincere consideration by the FCC, and then treat the rest of us exactly the same way the FCC and BPL treats them, by not giving us the same opportunity to be heard or the same considerations as Winlink.

As my dear mother used to say, it is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black!'

73, Skip KH6TY

[wa3vjb]

Likewise, Jim, I can tell when you are provoked because you drop red herrings and other detours such as answers for questions not asked. You have failed to respond to some very well-put points that myself and others have made on this thread. May I assume we hit the nail pretty close to the head?

Take the poor guy on here who didn’t get a hearing from his regional volunteer “director” because he wasn’t a member. #Here I am, an actual member who put the ARRL on probation for just the kind of shenanigans and stonewalling other people also notice. The response from my director? #Ol’ Bernie refused to discuss with me his thoughts on the threatened petition we are discussing here. Nice.

Okay, so here you are, chiming in, a bit off-point, but in there to some extent. You hold a leadership position at the ARRL, yet you are so overwhelmed by a faulty process that you cannot see that the results keep kicking you in the hind end. #

Take your ad hoc committees. In your most recent posting you never challenged my contention you have no standards to ensure that the selection of members represents a spectrum of interests affected. You, as titular leader, are now drawing fire for the miserable makeup of a panel that was chartered to explore finding a place for new digital modes.

Not only did the panel go beyond its mandate, but it did so in such a way as to exacerbate the narrow-minded, special interests of the few fellows you named to try to accomplish something. #Other interests in the amateur service are now geared up to fight you. Have you noticed?

You and Sumner may try to now portray yourselves as having “polled” the amateur community with your email alias, yet even after such receptiveness, there has been NO public acknowledgement of the opposition this threatened bandwidth petition has stirred up. The premise of your threatened move is wrong and we’ve told you so.

It really doesn’t matter whether you retreat now or later with your tail between your legs, but trust me – when it comes to this scheme of trying to use Part 97 rules to promote a specialty category of communications, there are more and more people, and probably some interested industry representatives, who are ready and able to smack you around politically.

Your call. #

BPL? Since you are probably still stinging from that loss, you might consider that you wasted Ed Hare’s work by making it a ham radio vs. industry debate. It was inevitable the industry would then paint the complainers as just an oddball little bunch, because you decided NOT to portray the findings as a problem for many HF services that happen to include Amateur Radio.

In the end we have lost a lot of equity we enjoyed with government agencies who saw us as a resource for emergency preparedness. They will take to heart how we are characterized in the FCC’s full report on BPL. It makes me sick what you’ve pissed away. Absolutely the worst administration in my 30 years of being licensed, Larry Price included. Sumner and Rinaldo ought to pension out and you ought to quit.

Quote:
"will you just forward my Simple Solution to the Board again."

You will note the word "again" here. So everyone knows, Skip has sent his opinion to the board. I know this as I recall being on the distribution list. So, the board does have it.

Skip, we will have to agree to disagree about the Balkanization of the bands. We have gone over this before. Let me ask that you remove the bias for a moment and put yourself in my place. You want to create specific areas for 3kc wide digital. Then we should create an area for SSTV. Next an area for enhanced SSB and then an area for Clover then an area for ACSSB. Where would it end? Would this be good for amateur radio? There would only be slivers of spectrum available for the traditional modes.

You have stated that the WinLink group has the inside track. Totally false! I do not know nor have I ever talked to anyone with WinLink. I doubt that any of the other directors have either except the board liason that served with you on the committee.

I respect and admire your work, your dedication and all that you have contributed to amateur radio. You have done a great service with Digipan and its related applications. However, I do think emotions have clouded your ability to see beyond the confines of the "box".
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Thanks for your comments, Paul. I will keep them in mind. I do note that you enjoy using the word "threatened" a lot.

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Oct. 30 2004,13:51)]Quote:
"will you just forward my Simple Solution to the Board again."

You will note the word "again" here. So everyone knows, Skip has sent his opinion to the board. I know this as I recall being on the distribution list. So, the board does have it.

Skip, we will have to agree to disagree about the Balkanization of the bands. We have gone over this before. Let me ask that you remove the bias for a moment and put yourself in my place. You want to create specific areas for 3kc wide digital. Then we should create an area for SSTV. Next an area for enhanced SSB and then an area for Clover then an area for ACSSB. Where would it end? Would this be good for amateur radio? There would only be slivers of spectrum available for the traditional modes.

You have stated that the WinLink group has the inside track. Totally false! I do not know nor have I ever talked to anyone with WinLink. I doubt that any of the other directors have either except the board liason that served with you on the committee.

I respect and admire your work, your dedication and all that you have contributed to amateur radio. You have done a great service with Digipan and its related applications. However, I do think emotions have clouded your ability to see beyond the confines of the "box".
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Jim,

I sent the "Simple Solution" by email to you and all the Directors. I have heard not a single bit of feedback, or any comment at all as to why either the data, or the logic, is faulty. As this is the third time, and the most complete submission I have made, it is completely unreasonable to expect NO comments at all to be made. Therefore, I must conclude that either the Directors have been instructed to ignore what I submit (as inferred by a vice-director somewhere I have read, but cannot recall where), or for some reason, the Directors, as others have complained about, are not going to let their opinions known to anybody. This is an election year, and politicians are all being measured based on their voting records. Are ARRL Directors somehow exempt from being judged according to what they support or have supported?

Isn't there somthing WRONG with this picture!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?

Balkanization- The lastest word from the EC (executive committee) is that a special place will be created for wideband digital on 30 meters. Is this not "Balkanization", but in favor of Winlink? Winlink's Pactor-III is the only digital mode in any significant use that is around 3 KHz wide, and, except for digital voice, the only one of any significance to appear.

Who asked for even more space on 30 meters for wide digital than the FCC allows, and the Board immediately gave it to them, when phone of the same bandwidth is prohibited? Winlink did, nobody else, and when Winlink said, "Dance", the Board "Danced". We have to judge by actions we see, and not just words.

I am not suggesting that the bands be "Balkanized", but that a specific operational behavior, namely unattended operations, be forbidden to intermix with attended operations. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, creating a space for a special interest or mode, but to prevent a protocol, that is by design antisocial, from unnecessaryily runing the ham experience for everyone else, when 1% benefit and 99% suffer.

Is preventing unattended operations from intermixing with phone "Balkanization"? If the Board feels it necessary to "protect" phone from unattended operations, why do they not feel it necessary to protect other digital modes similarly? The phone operators have never even experienced that kind of QRM, because it never has been legal to operate digital modes in the phone bands, but CW and attended operators have, yet, the Board is willing to protect phone operators and not CW and digital operators. Does that make sense to you?

The issue is NOT 3 KHz modes and a place for them. The issue is not letting UNATTENDED operations, that will not, and that half cannot, share frequencies with everyone else, no matter what bandwidth they use. Unattended Pactor-II is 500 Hz wide, and must be subject to the same separation as Pactor-III, which is 2400 Hz wide.

The idea is NOT to carve up the spectrum for specific modes or bandwidths - 500 Hz-wide Pactor-II, attended, not unattended, would be completely compatible with attended operations, because there is always someone at both ends of the communications to mitigate interference.

Does this qualify me as having emotions clouding my ability to see beyond the confines of the "box"? I don't think so.

Does anyone else reading this agree that we should NOT separate unattended and attended operations, regardless of bandwidth?

Tomorrow, a new DigiPan web page for DigiPan 2.0 (http://www.digipan.net) will be released, which will incorporate a spectacular new and simplified way to work stations on PSK31 and PSK63, and will also incorporate a simple Pactor QRM reporting form which I urge anyone experiencing a Pactor station coming on top of your QSO, whether it be CW or PSK31/63, to fill out with as much information as they can and press the Send button.

Perhaps if you just try PSK31 or PSK63 receive-only, by simply connecting an audio cable from your transceiver earphone jack to your computer soundcard Line input and observe how often a Pactor station comes on top of an ongoing QSO, you will begin to understand what we are all talking about when we say Pactor QRM, and you will be able to appreciate why there is so much opposition to the proposed petition, which would be unnecessary if unattended operations were in a separate space, which would not be "Balkanization!"

How about just asking the Board to discuss the "Simple Solution" and let us know if it is rejected for the reason of "Balkanization" or not, instead of supporting complete silence, or refusal to support discussion of the proposal because you personally think it will "Balkanize" the bands. This is not your proposal, it is mine, so you will not be identified with any "Balkanization" it may appear to infer, and the Board should at least discuss its merits and not be blocked from doing so by your own personal opinion. Isn't that why we have what is supposed to be a Board that represents the members?

The Simple Solution would merely require Winlink to tell their users to use different frequencies, that is all. Why is a "wall of silence" being thrown up by the Board Members, and by yourself by not asking the Board to discuss the proposal?

Is it to "protect" Winlink? It sure looks that way...

If not, then please tell us why the Board will not discuss the proposal, and while you are at it, maybe you can tell us why the comments sent to bandwidth@arrl.org are not made available to anyone who would like to make their own analysis and groupings of the comments.

73, Skip KH6TY

[n4zou]

[QUOTE] After trying so hard to work with the ARRL, and just being stonewalled as a result, we have no choice but to challenge the ARRL with convincing facts and arguments before the FCC, and I am already prepared to do that, but it would be much more effective to have the support of an organization or identifiable group of quite a few thousand hams than to do it all alone. If the group were large enough, it could claim to represent the "vast majority" of the FCC-licensed hams.

If you have any suggestions how to accomplish this, please let them be known.

We DO need a new organization that truly represents all radio amateurs, and not just the 1% favored ones, and I'd like to be a charter member...

73, Skip KH6TY

A competing origination will be the only way to make the ARRL start to listen to not only their members but the unaffiliated radio operators as well. The very first thing to do is naming it and start a Yahoo group as a place to start a new thread. Thinking about it I came up with Civilian Communication Emergency Service (CCES). This is just what I came up with on the fly. I am sure someone has a better suggestion. The key to the new
Origination is to promote emergency service to the community and not to just a fraternity. The ARRL (Amateur Radio Relay League) was probably a good name in the last century but today the community wants something that sounds and is professional. Using the word amateur today gives it the tone as a hobby or toy to be ignored and basically useless for real services. We should start using Volunteer instead of amateur giving the impression of a Volunteer Fireman or Volunteer Deputy. Uniforms should be adopted giving a professional look at all events. I have just created the group and it is open to everyone at this time. The link is….
#http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n4zou/

[N5PVL]

Given my reservations concerning the ability of any group of people ( amateurs included ) to maintain high moral standards in the presence of federal grant money, I think I'd have to take a pass on any new "all e-comms" organizations.

E-comms used to be the place to go to find the most dedicated, decent hams. The DHS grant money has changed this. The decent ones are still there, but they are being drowned out by opportunists who never gave a hoot about e-comms before the aroma of federal grant money drifted into the air.

If it were up to me, I'd tell the feds at DHS to keep the grant money, and ask for expanded cooperation, coordination and legal/political backup instead.

But that's just me.

Charles, #N5PVL

[kh6ty]

[QUOTE=Quote ] After trying so hard to work with the ARRL, and just being stonewalled as a result, we have no choice but to challenge the ARRL with convincing facts and arguments before the FCC, and I am already prepared to do that, but it would be much more effective to have the support of an organization or identifiable group of quite a few thousand hams than to do it all alone. If the group were large enough, it could claim to represent the "vast majority" of the FCC-licensed hams.

If you have any suggestions how to accomplish this, please let them be known.

We DO need a new organization that truly represents all radio amateurs, and not just the 1% favored ones, and I'd like to be a charter member...

73, Skip KH6TY

A competing origination will be the only way to make the ARRL start to listen to not only their members but the unaffiliated radio operators as well. The very first thing to do is naming it and start a Yahoo group as a place to start a new thread. Thinking about it I came up with Civilian Communication Emergency Service (CCES). This is just what I came up with on the fly. I am sure someone has a better suggestion. The key to the new
Origination is to promote emergency service to the community and not to just a fraternity. The ARRL (Amateur Radio Relay League) was probably a good name in the last century but today the community wants something that sounds and is professional. Using the word amateur today gives it the tone as a hobby or toy to be ignored and basically useless for real services. We should start using Volunteer instead of amateur giving the impression of a Volunteer Fireman or Volunteer Deputy. Uniforms should be adopted giving a professional look at all events. I have just created the group and it is open to everyone at this time. The link is….
#http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n4zou/
I'm afraid that name, or inferred mission, will not make much of a favorable impression on the FCC, even though we might think it should.

The ARRL Newsletter just reported on the just-released FCC BPL docket Report and Order, and this is what was written by the FCC:

BPL operators would be required to avoid certain bands, such as those used for life and safety communications by aeronautical mobile or US Coast Guard stations. The FCC R&O makes clear, however, that similar rules will
not apply to the Amateur Service.

"We similarly do not find that Amateur Radio frequencies warrant the special protection afforded frequencies reserved for international aeronautical and maritime safety operations," the Commission said. "While
we recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist in providing emergency communications," the FCC added. It described typical amateur operations as "routine communications and hobby activities."

Whether we like it or not, the current FCC feels amateur operations are just "routine" communications and "hobby" activities.

This lastest change in the perception of the value of amateur radio may have been partially brought about by competing radio services, such as cell phones and satellite phone and data communications and, of course, the Internet.

I don't really know for sure, of course, but if the FCC sees it that way, and the idea of a new association is to lobby for rules favorable to the majority of radio amateurs before the FCC, that impression might best be kept very much in mind. I'd therefore suggest emphasizing the hobby aspects as being necessary to attract people who might someday provide new innovations in radio or electronics, and play down the emergency communications aspect.

Others might see it differently...

73, Skip KH6TY

[ky5u]

Mr. Jim,

Quote[/b] ]Charlie, I wrote the above before I had a chance to read your post. Not bad ideas at all. I guess I have to ask the question though, how do you pay for all of this? The democratic system is in place. Convince your director to make motions on some of your ideas. Or, run for director yourself and as you say, work from within.

How will I pay for this?

1. Polls- You already publish QST to members. #Print the ballot instead of 1 page of article. #Members pay THEIR OWN postage to send it back. Volunteers to receive and sort the responses. #Send them to Frank, and I will find the volunteers to sort and count them. Or provide your own volunteers in Newington. No incremental cost.

2. Publish the results - In QST and on your website. No incremental cost.

3. Directors and Email - Do you PAY them to answer email?

4. Committee meets by teleconference. #I have a conference bridge I can load to the League if you don't have one. #

5. "Special" Membership - http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?? #Would make money.

6. Orientation Brochure - Sell adds in it to HRO/Burkhardt/Universal/Texas Tower/etc. to pay for the brochure. #Doesn't have to be full color 72 pages. #Not good?

7. Clubs Sponser Rag Chew - Should be done at no cost.

8. Will of the members - no cost?

9. Existing Officers - no cost?


Convince My Director to do this

1. Frank is a VERY nice guy but you know he hasn't got the horsepower to do this.

2. This kind of initiative needs to come from the top. You need to start something like this Jim. #YOU.

Run for Office

This is like the law school "hostile witness" exercise where you ask, "Yes or No sir, have you stopped beating your wife?" #Honestly, I don't aspire to be the leader of the ARRL. #I actually think YOU make a good leader with a few very minor adjustments. #But look at your response, Jim.... I offered you a mostly costless way to get the horse back on the wagon and look at your questions. #How will you pay, get your Director to do it, run for office...

How many times have you used those responses? Aren't they really just dodges? I think you're one hell of nice fellow that ought to have common sense enough to recognize when you need to round up the sheep and get them back in the corral. #Please, no insult intended.

I'd love to see a strong League still here 50 years from now. I doubt if you would accept my help, but I offer it anyway.

[W0GI]

To Jim w5jbp,

I won't get into the details of the changes to the proposal, but I am pleased by them. #It is nice to hear that some folks are listening.

What I want to talk about, is how the ARRL is getting blasted here.

First off, there are the folks that hate the ARRL. #Then there are the members that don't think the ARRL is communicating with the members. I am one of those members. #Then there are some that don't really care.

All in all, it doesn't look very good for the ARRL.

Reading through the QRZ threads, I see non-members that have problems, and members that have problems.

Well, it doesn't seem to me that the non-members would ever join, when the members feel that they are left out.

We don't have a voice that unites ARRL members.

We just listen to whatever you say. #Then the choice is, just don't renew.

That's not the way it should work. The members should decide. #They shouldn't just quit in protest of an orginazation that won't listen.

Sorry, but I don't understand why there is no forum like this for ARRL members.

If one guy can setup qrz.com, I think the ARRL could have a system like this?

What do you think it looks like to the average ham, if we have to come here to get a response?

Hello Jim, that is the reality.

Why is there not a system of comments like this for members? #

Maybe we as members could work some of these issues out.

If we as members came to a compromise, it might be easier to talk to the rest of the ham community.

You might even find that the ham community was in agreement with the majority of the members, and we would have even more members.

The arrl.org site is nothing but a "to you" information site.

Yes we can comment, but you never let the members know what the other member's comments were.

The US government has to give out that information, but I pay money to the ARRL and you don't?

Do you think that you will get new members, when the members have to go to a public forum to get a voice? #

Wouldn't it be better for the members to work the issues out within the ARRL, and not have to go on public forums? #

W6NJ

[W8MW]

Being generous with this presumption, if all 833 formal comments to FCC on RM-10867 were from individual ARRL members, (using Jim’s 157,000 total) one-half of one percent of the membership involved themselves in that ARRL initiative (license restructuring). #The league was pitifully ineffective in the processes it did and did not use toward a consesus of membership thinking and support for its plan.

ARRL’s handling of the bandwidth petition looks like déjà vu all over again. #I join the others who would rather see ARRL support the majority than put us in the position of needing to disenfranchise the Newington franchise by showing significant member opposition.

There’s a giant leap between making “appropriate provision for digital modes in the HF amateur bands…” and the proposed wholesale changes to the fabric of amateur radio. KH6TY’s Simple Solution says #“A major rewrite of Part 97, with the attending unknown consequences, is not required.” # Choosing to ignore a voice of caution and moderation is reckless. #

The petition is a convoluted concoction with far too many agendas in play, layered over too many false presumptions about what active amateurs need or want. #ARRL needs to blow it up and get a new attitude. #

73 Mike

[ab0wr]

"The issue is NOT 3 KHz modes and a place for them. The issue is not letting UNATTENDED operations, that will not, and that half cannot, share frequencies with everyone else, no matter what bandwidth they use. Unattended Pactor-II is 500 Hz wide, and must be subject to the same separation as Pactor-III, which is 2400 Hz wide.

The idea is NOT to carve up the spectrum for specific modes or bandwidths - 500 Hz-wide Pactor-II, attended, not unattended, would be completely compatible with attended operations, because there is always someone at both ends of the communications to mitigate interference.

Does this qualify me as having emotions clouding my ability to see beyond the confines of the "box"? I don't think so. "

Jim,

I hope you understand what Skip is saying. The issue is NOT balkanization of the bands. The issue is setting things up so that automatic and semi-automatic operation of a mode that is so devastating to other modes will not ruin the bands for the rest of us.

Please understand. *I* run an automatic pactor station myself. *I* know that the pactor modems only listen for other pactor stations on frequency, not for other modes. *I* have NO problem with being limited to operation on a limited sub-band. In fact, most of the NTSD stations, of which I am a part, have *voluntarily* limited ourselves to only operating in the current designated automatic subbands.

If efficient use of the automatic subbands is made, there should be more than enough bandwidth already today. There just isn't enough utiliization of the spectrum today to justify any more.

If the utilization ever gets high enough to justify more bandwidth - DON'T. The efforts should be put into finding more efficient ways to use the existing bandwidth rather than just taking the easy way out of providing more bandwidth. Pactor is a very limited, inefficient mode. It requires specific monopolization of a frequency bandwidth for a station-to-station session. As discussed here on qrz in other threads, the amateur service needs to investigate using a more efficient mode such as a token passing mode that would allow sharing a frequency among a number of stations, perhaps arbitrated by centralized hub stations.

In any case, dismissing Skip's proposal as propounding "Balkanization" is in the same class of bad debating as a politician dismissing someone's proposals by stereotyping the person in order to marginalize them. Instead, address the proposal directly. Tell us why it won't work. Tell us why the board won't even consider it as a formal proposal on the table.

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

AG4YO:

"How will I pay for this?

1. Polls- You already publish QST to members. Print the ballot instead of 1 page of article. Members pay THEIR OWN postage to send it back. Volunteers to receive and sort the responses. Send them to Frank, and I will find the volunteers to sort and count them. Or provide your own volunteers in Newington. No incremental cost."

This is absolutely the only way to go. Internet polling just doesn't work well. It is too easy to flood the ballot box.

I might suggest that a postcard type ballot could be included in the magazine quite easily. A non-postage paid postcard. It would make sending the ballot back in much easier. No envelopes, no addressing, just a stamp.

I would volunteer to sort and count ballots. Just stuff 'em in a box and send them to me. In two weeks I could get at least 10000 manually typed into an excel spreadsheet or a mysql database on my linux box. Get 10 other volunteers and in a month we could summarize all the ballots you're liable to get.

Very limited cost - QED.

tim ab0wr

[kh6ty]

Good idea, Tim!

I was also considering how long it would take to catagorize the 500 comments sent to bandwidth@arrl.org and I think it would take no longer than a day.

I'd do the work, and make the spreadsheet available for everyone to see and understand what the comments suggest.

Now, we only have to get ARRL to make the emails available;)

73, Skip

[wb0wao]

Simple solution IMHO.....

1 - Ban the automatic systems.

2 - Sub-band the semi-auto systems.

3 - LEAVE EVERYTHING ELSE ALONE!

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (wb0wao @ Oct. 31 2004,10:41)]Simple solution IMHO.....

1 - Ban the automatic systems.

2 - Sub-band the semi-auto systems.

3 - LEAVE EVERYTHING ELSE ALONE!
Banning automatic operation is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. What is needed is to segregate auto and semi-auto operation so they can be avoided. How large the segregation area needs to be should be subject to study and quantification using known engineering principles, offered load, channel capacities, etc.

Beyond that, there probably is a need to update the rules to provide for higher speed operation in the HF spectrum. I believe much more technical study of existing equipment and its capabilities, as well as the forecasted growth for wider band digital, is needed before sound judgements can be made on however.

tim ab0wr

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]The league was pitifully ineffective in the processes it did and did not use toward a consesus of membership thinking and support for its plan.

Quote[/b] ](Ed: Paper poll in QST)This is absolutely the only way to go. Internet polling just doesn't work well. It is too easy to flood the ballot box.

Yes, both good points. #We have to remember that as many as 50-75% of ARRL members may not even own a computer capable of getting on the Internet. That is why the "spring flowers, butterflies, and fluffy bunnies" version being printed in QST about these types of issues may indeed disuade members from giving their opinions.

The internet may be the closest thing to fair exposure the actions of the League get. #QST is a beautiful magazine but was not ever a fair journalistic source where the ARRL's own dealings go. #CQ is a good magazine too, but they seem to be more interested in their relationship with the League than reporting both sides of a story. Other outlets like "Newsline" are limited in their ability to report real news. #They have a "don't call us, we'll call you" policy. So if you had a good hard news story about Amateur Radio and took it to them, by the fact that you did they would not accept it.

The good news is that even if the average age of Amateurs stays the same, the Internet will be ever more influential in member opinion. Sometimes opinions here go in the opposite direction from the flowery reports in QST, but I think Amateurs are smart enough to figure out what to do when presented with both sides.

So for now, a paper poll in QST for members is the only way to go. #And whether I agree or not, if the membership votes to do something I really could not fault the officers for following a member mandate.

[N5PVL]

AG4YO says:
Quote[/b] ]
The good news is that even if the average age of Amateurs stays the same, the Internet will be ever more influential in member opinion. Sometimes opinions here go in the opposite direction from the flowery reports in QST, but I think Amateurs are smart enough to figure out what to do when presented with both sides.


The rapid transfer and distribution of info the internet makes possible caught CBS by surprise. The ARRL doesn't appear to "get it" either, but I suppose we can rest assured that sooner or later it will.

Charles, N5PVL

[kh6ty]

Note in Jim Haynie's reply, that ARRL says the "vast majority" of active hams support the concept of the petition, but then he goes to show that the number of active hams is pure conjecture, and assumes many are not alive.

It would be more accurate to refer to the percentage of licensed hams, instead of active hams, since that number is known, but the actual number of active hams is conjecture.

In my book, I want to see all 500+ comments and be allowed to draw my own honest conclusions.

We can definitely state that ARRL membership represents about 20% of the FCC-licensed hams, and an unknown percentage of active hams.

How about referring to the less than 1% of FCC-licensed hams the ARRL is so strongly favoring compared to the 99% of everyone else...

Downloads of DigiPan have consistently hit 60,000 in the past, if that is any indication of interest in digital modes other than Winlink. The MixW reflector has 2000 members and all have purchased MixW, which is a digital program. A recent poll worldwide showed that DigiPan still maintains over 50% of the users, compared to the total of all other digital programs, which suggests over 100,000 users of digital modes, other than Pactor or Winlink's system, which means at best, Winlink is 5% of the digital users. It is not fair for the ARRL to favor 1% to 5% of the digital users at the expense of 99% to 95% of all other users. The FCC has already allocated 3.8% of the amateur radio spectrum for automatic operations, which is just about all Winlink's "semi-automatic" unattended operations are entitled to.

What exactly is driving ARRL to discriminate against 99% to 95% of the digital users in favor of Winlink's 1% to 5%? I think the rest of us are entitled to some honest answers, since that is what we pay our dues for (i.e. representation).

73, Skip KH6TY

[k5rks]

I have communicated with a few of you via E-mails regarding the ad-hoc report. However, I'd like to put my view up so all can see it. The following is a verbatim copy of what I sent to my Pacific Region ARRL director and also what I sent to the ARRL at bandwidth@arrl.org

--------------------------------------------------------

I agree that the current rules don't really address the current and future situation. However, our current mix of rules and "gentlemen's agreements" seems to be working now pretty well to separate CW, PSK31, RTTY, and SSB on the popular HF bands.

For example, on 20m (one of our most crowded bands) guys doing various emissions pretty much hang out at specific places so things are under control. In my own experience I would say the worst types of QRM we have now are either (a) QRM from foreign broadcasts [like on 40m], (b) unintentional QRM from guys a few Hz or Khz away using the same mode, or &copy; occasional "intentional" QRM from a few disgruntled hams who think they "own" a frequency. The new proposal does not address any of these three problems.

Where is all the cross-mose QRM that the new rules purport to solve?

I think the issues Skip raises are valid points. The new proposal does have the intended consequence of opening the floodgates of all kind of "broad digital" emissions in the the current phone bands.

I think the "analog" modes such as CW [maybe technically CW is a "digital" mode but I think for historical reasons CW can be called an "analog" mode], AM, and SSB are incompatible with "digital" modes for the reasons Skip elucidates. You will notice that hams already are segregating "digital" mode operations from other operations by gentlemen's agreements.

I think we are better off with what we have now than with the chaos that could be sanctioned with the proposed new rules. As we are right now we don't have too much cross-mode QRM on the phone bands because phone -- as currrently defined -- does not allow much besides AM or SSB.

JUST BECAUSE TWO EMISSIONS USE THE SAME AMOUNT OF BANDWIDTH DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ABLE TO CO-EXIST

I know I am opening Pandora's Box but I wonder if attended vs. unattended operation would not be a better criterion than bandwidth to separate potentially conflicting services?

Right now we have gentlemens's agreements which segregate RTTY and PSK31 from CW. Does the ARRL envision similar gentlemen's agreements to separate "wide data" emissions from traditional AM or SSB?

I agree that the rules we have now are a kludge. However, in practice things are working OK. I say if it's not broke, don't fix it. A totally new band-plan which has a range of "analog" freq sub-bands and a separate range of "digital" freq sub-bands might solve some of the problems of the proposed plan. However, there would be so many sub-bands in a given band that in my opinion it would result in regulatory overkill.

I have been a ham since 1958. I am an extra class ham. I operate mostly CW, PSK31, and RTTY. I am a retired software engineer and play around with some of my own software to run various modes -- such as RTTY -- using the sound cards. I don't use voice much but I have been known to slide up there once and a while -- such as this week to work the Route 66 guys.

I have been a member of the ARRL for a long time -- probably 40 years.

This thing needs more work!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------
One of the things I mentioned in my above note which seems to still be of concern is the potential need to partition "automatic" (and possibly "semi-automatic") modes away from traditional CW, PSK31, RTTY, AM, SSB.
However, I am fairly active now on HF and I have not encountered much -- if any -- QRM from "automatic" digital operations so this whole thing looks like a solution to a non-problem to me.

I say leave everything alone and continue to rely on the existing combination of: (1) The current rules [however "obsolete"], (2) Our current gentleman's agreements, and (3) The current "voluntary HF band plans for considerate US operators" (as promulgated by the ARRL).

We already have a precident in the HF band plan which provides for various aspects of amateur radio including SSTV and "automatic" operations. At most, I think all we need to do is to tweak the voluntary HF band plan if the balance of usage between various modes (SSB, RTTY, PSK31, Pactor, SSTV, CW, Beacons, etc) suggests that a change is needed.

Roger Simpson -- NQ6C -- San Jose California

[kh6ty]

Well said, Roger.

Winlink used to be a huge problem to PSK31, but, two years ago, after three months of jawboning, they finally moved their unattended operations frequencies out of the PSK31 activity area. However, now they have taken over 40 meters, right in the middle of the PSK31 activity, so if QRM is to be reduced, Winlink needs again to find a place for unattended operations that is not a popular gathering place for other, attended operations. Of course that could be solved by another "gentleman's agreement", but there is a huge problem in arriving at such an agreement with Winlink, because they prefer to spread all over the bands instead of working in a single, defined space, such as the 97.221(b) sub-bands. If they would, all the interference between unattended operations and attended operations would instantly cease! How simple! If you have not see it, here is a link to such a simple solution that I sent to all the Directors and to Jim Haynie, but I have received not one acknowledgement or comment about the idea for any Director:A Simple Solution (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/simplesolution.htm) .Maybe your own Director will be willing to discuss his ideas about the Simple Solution with you if you ask him about it.

Let me point out that the reason a plan for segmentation by bandwidth instead of by mode is desired for the future is because of the advent of more and more digital modes, some of which mix one mode with another, such as MFSK16 with narrowband fax, and even analog digital voice with digital digital voice. As the regulations currently read, such mixing is not legal, and that leads to problems that require regulatory changes after lengthy periods of discussion and comment.

The Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee was supposed to recommend ways to deal with that issue. Instead, Winlink seized control of the committee and produce a bandplan, which was not even in the committee charter to do, in which they attempted to rewrite the rules to support vast expansion of their activities without restriction. It was only when the fact that unattended digital modes would be interfering with phone operations was made clear, that the ARRL decided to protect phone operations from unattended digital operations by forbiding unattended operations in the phone bands, as per the latest press release from the Executive Committee of the ARRL. However, this discriminates against CW and attended digital modes, because it does not provide the same protection to them from unattended operations that ARRL considers serious enough to protect phone from unattended operations.

The Simple Solution achieves this protection for both phone and attended digital operations, but does not go far enough to address the need for segmentation by bandwidth. That would necessitate such a major revision to the regulations, with many unforseen consequences, than rather than starting with a bandplan drafted by a special interest group, and biased toward the wishes of that special interest group, a new blue-ribbon committee, representing and qualified to represent, all ham radio interests and modes, needs to be formed to study the problem and work out a solution fair to everyone. The current ARRL proposal is littered with obscure small changes which Winlink added to support their expansion, and it is hard to discover just what proposed changes to the current rules place undue hardship on everyone but Winlink.

This make take the form of the IARU Region 1 draft bandplan, which, as you suggest, combines segmentation by bandwidth with voluntary bandplans. Wherever non-compliance with voluntary bandplans becomes a major problem, then the only recourse is regulatory restraints.

Thanks for writing to your Division Director and for sharing your thoughts with all of us.

73, Skip KH6TY

[K3CB]

Interesting debate. For the record I am an ARRL member. Though I have serious reservations about what is presently in draft and the commentary that follows, I find that commentary to be too specific to be constructive to the debate. Having just left a political appointment in the DoD, responsible, inter alia, for "spectrum", I can assure you we need to get our collective best foot forward on proposals such as are in current draft and are being discussed in this forum. Gents the issue is efficient use of spectrum. Its not just FCC pushing for same, its all over Washington, in Committees of the Congress, and in Departments and Agencies. There is little doubt that digital modes are coming onto our scene fast and we need to transform our culture and the "gentleman's agreements" of the past to accommdate this ever increasing trend. How we are going to do this, how we can become ever more efficient users of our presently allocated spectrum is a challenge we all face. I appreciate the ARRL recognizing this simple fact and taking action to come up with the means to bring about change. Though I do not agree with statements in the present draft, especially those that appear to favor one solution over another, I do favor the debate -- so long as its focused on how we in the US Amateur Radio community are thinking about ways to use our spectrum more efficiently - mode sharing being but one such solution, especially with the advent of ever increasing digital capabilities. I believe we need to keep our eye on the ball or we will wind up losing access to spectrum at times and in segments much desired by other spectrum users. I look forward to reading more as this debate expands. Owen, K3CB

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (K3CB @ Nov. 01 2004,14:20)]Interesting debate. #For the record I am an ARRL member. #Though I have serious reservations about what is presently in draft and the commentary that follows, I find that commentary to be too specific to be constructive to the debate. #Having just left a political appointment in the DoD, responsible, inter alia, for "spectrum", I can assure you we need to get our collective best foot forward on proposals such as are in current draft and are being discussed in this forum. #Gents the issue is efficient use of spectrum. #Its not just FCC pushing for same, its all over Washington, in Committees of the Congress, and in Departments and Agencies. #There is little doubt that digital modes are coming onto our scene fast and we need to transform our culture and the "gentleman's agreements" of the past to accommdate this ever increasing trend. #How we are going to do this, how we can become ever more efficient users of our presently allocated spectrum is a challenge we all face. #I appreciate the ARRL recognizing this simple fact and taking action to come up with #the means to bring about change. #Though I do not agree with statements in the present draft, especially those that appear to favor one solution over another, I do favor the debate -- so long as its focused on how we in the US Amateur Radio community are thinking about ways to use our spectrum more efficiently - mode sharing being but one such solution, especially with the advent of ever increasing digital capabilities. #I believe we need to keep our eye on the ball or we will wind up losing access to spectrum at times and in segments much desired by other spectrum users. #I look forward to reading more as this debate expands. #Owen, K3CB
Good post, Owen!

FYI, Winlink is using Pactor-III for email, which is five times as wide as Pactor-II, but only provides at most a 30% increase in speed over Pactor-II, based on three weeks of data provided by Winlink.

The problem is not the raw speed of Pactor-III over Pactor-II, but the fact that the typical email Winlink forwards only takes an average of 1.7 minutes using Pactor-III compared to 2.2 minutes using Pactor-II, yet Winlink insists on using Pactor-III simply because it is "faster". The reason Pactor-III is not so much faster than Pactor-II for short emails is the generally large amount of overhead to establish either Pactor-II #or Pactor-III linked connections.

As a result, they try to dominate more and more frequencies in order to be able to use that speed.

The data can be found here: Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Recommendation (http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html) .

Do you think the Winlink position is reasonable?

The issue here is not the intent of providing a regulatory structure for future digital modes, but the bastardization of that intent by a special interest group representing less than 1% of the FCC-licensed hams.

In particular, right along with your comments, I think our ARRL should be supporting spectrum conservation instead of spectrum hogging or wasting, but they are not.

I don't know if you operate digital modes, but I recently introduced PSK63, while not completely error-free like Pactor, it transmits text at 100 wpm, almost twice as fast as Baudot RTTY, in one fifth the bandwidth. Even more innovation in the direction of more efficient spectrum usage for the purpose is possible, and would happen if the ARRL were promoting efficient use of the spectrum as you suggest, instead of promoting waste of the spectrum, because they are favoring a small special interst group.

This is THE problem! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Skip KH6TY

[k5rks]

Owen:

I rarely participate in these forums but I just can't remain silent.

Your recent post is a real wake-up call for me.

My previously unstated perception of the method of dealing with new modes was as follows: (a) we work out appropriate "gentlemen's agreements", (b) we then write them down and update the &