The ARRL Bandwidth Proposal

[ad4mg]

If you wish to file your comments with the ARRL regarding their bandwidth proposal, there is little time left to do so. #Comments should be sent to:

bandwidth@arrl.org

It is my understanding that the proposal, in it's current form, will allow WL2K stations control of nearly 40% of ALL of our current allocations in the 10, 15, 20, 40, and 80 meter bands. #This does not include their efforts to swallow up 1/2 of the 30 meter band. #CW users will give up the most when you consider that these users will share their remaining bandwidth with all "narrow" digital modes ... which is everything BUT WL2K. #Also, packet radio will forever be laid to rest on the HF bands, as the proposal will eliminate those miniscule parts of the bands for their auto-forwarding.

If it's OK with you to give up 40% of your favorite bands to internet e-mail spewing Pactor III robots, then disregard this message, and your wish will come true. #The ARRL is wearing blinders, and can only see one direction at this time, and that's WL2K. #I don't intend to stand idly by and give up 40% of our most popular bands so some rich dudes in their motor homes, or on sailboats, can enjoy cheating the legitimate ISP's out of the fees that they charge for providing this service.

I am all in favor of reorganizing our allocations in an effort to accommodate new digital modes, but this proposal takes way too much from the 98% of amateur radio operators who are not interested in turning our hobby into a cheap internet e-mail gateway for the rich and priviledged. #Oh yeah, they will cry emergency communications, and the "amateur radio inernet e-mail for every EM's desk" motto, but it's just not worth it.

Tell the ARRL how you feel ... this could certainly be your last chance to do so.

Ponder this ... if these new wideband modes are soooo efficient, then why do they require 20 Khz of space? #If you give packet radio 20 Khz, it too could be much faster. #The speed limit on packet radio is now determined by the pitiful amount of bandwidth allocated to them. #Why does WL2K, a proprietary mode, with very high startup costs deserve all of this spectrum when packet radio has had to deal with the microscopic slices of bandwidth for all of these years??? #It just smells of yesterday's garbage, and I don't think that the proposal, in it's current form, will benefit anyone but the 2% minority fighting for 40% of our bands.

For the record ... I do NOT, nor do I plan to utilize packet radio on the HF bands. #My concerns are for the service in general, and the negative impact this proposal will have.

Best 73,
Luke Bannister

[wa3vjb]

I don't have a position on "Winlink," but there is no argument that it is limited to being a specialty and is not accepted nor used by the mainstream Amateur community.

Based on related postings among the ad hoc committees here on QRZ.com, the ARRL's threatened bandwidth proposal is doomed.

Many have commented directly to the blind email box you've cited; I even got a reply from one of the people with the group in Newington that came up with this misguided scheme.

But the group will not engage with its members or others who would be affected by their idea of using the FCC regulatory structure to promote embryonic modes that may never catch on in the Amateur Service. My own "director," Bernie Fuller, N3EFN, directly refused to discuss with me whether and why he favored or opposed the threatened petition.

We also have seen no public response to calls for a tally, pro and con, of the number of people who have chosen to respond to the ARRL's call for comments the past few months.

Although it's great that you're urging a response from people, there's a good basis to believe the comments proffered will meet the same fate as those submitted to the "polls" Haynie has highlighted on the Newington group's website.

A closed-door, backroom deal cooked up by a few people interested in digital specialties does not rely on a representative cross-section of the Amateur community.

Without popular support, and by leaving out the people who should have been commissioned to determine whether such a scheme is appropriate and viable, the League has set itself up for another failure.

From the FCC's perspective, the group in Newington has already failed to address, in any of the published draft schemes, whether mainstream communications would suffer enough interference from digital to warrant regulatory protection.

Paul/VJB
Annapolis

[ad4mg]

Here is an analysis of the ARRL bandwidth proposal, all based on information posted on the ARRL web page, in particular, the recommendations of the HSMM committee:

From the Jan 21-22, 2005 ARRL's "HSMM Networks Working Group Technology Task Force" committee report:

"We understand that amateurs using the existing HF CW and phone bands
want protection, and if the ARRL must reflect that we recommend 200 Hz
statutory limits at the lower for CW and low-speed data, and 6 kHz
statutory limits at the upper end of each band to allow existing SSB,
ISB and DSB AM operation plus any other modes that fall within the
bandwidth limitations."

"At a minimum, 20 kHz wide emissions should be
allowed in the following segments:"

# #3.58 - 3.725 MHz
# #7.035 - 7.125 MHz
# #14.065 - 14.15 MHz
# #21.08 - 21.2 MHz
# #29 - 29.7 MHz

======== my analysis of the above data ========

3500 - #3580 80 Khz = #16% for CW
3580 - #3725 145 Khz = #29% for Digital (500 Khz)
3725 - #4000 275 Khz = #55% for Voice

7000 - #7035 35 Khz = #12% for CW
7035 - #7125 90 Khz = #30% for Digital (300 Khz)
7125 - #7300 175 Khz = #58% for Voice

14000 - 14065 65 Khz = #19% for CW
14065 - 14150 85 Khz = #24% for Digital (350 Khz)
14150 - 14350 200 Khz = #57% for Voice

21000 - 21080 80 Khz = #18% for CW
21080 - 21200 120 Khz = #27% for Digital (450 Khz)
21200 - 21450 250 Khz = #55% for Voice

28000 - 28300 300 Khz = #18% for CW
28300 - 29000 700 Khz = #41% for Voice
29000 - 29700 700 Khz = #41% for Digital # (1700 Khz)

35% of the total spectrum listed (80, 40, 20, 15, and 10
meters) would be allocated to wideband digital modes as a
MINIMUM. #Note that this does NOT include the 50% "grab"
that they want to pull on 30 meters!

16.9% of the total spectrum listed would be allocated to
CW users, and whatever fits the description of "low speed
data". #No mention is made of existing unattended auto-
forwarding. #It has to be assumed that this activity will
be forbidden.

48.1% of the total spectrum listed would be allocated to
voice communications.

This is a generous amount of precious spectrum for activity currently enjoyed by less than 2% of all amateur radio operators (estimate posted elsewhere on QRZ). #This simply is not a fair proposal to the 98% of amateurs who are not interested in buying $1000+ worth of equipment for the sole purpose of passing internet e-mail over amateur hf bands, and that's all this thing is about, internet e-mail.

Please send your comments to the ARRL in hopes that they may even listen to what we say for a change.

Best 73,
Luke

[W3MIV]

The report of the HSMM Committee was submitted, but it has not been acted on or even considered at the Board meeting in January that I can tell from the minutes.

The draft bandwidth proposal was sent back to the Executive Committee for reconsideration of two items, as shown in the following extract from the minutes of the January, 2005, meeting:

"On motion of Mr. Roderick, seconded by Mr. Milnes, the following resolution was ADOPTED:

"WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has received and considered a draft petition for rulemaking proposing a flexible means of band segmentation principally by maximum bandwidth, rather than by emission type; and
WHEREAS, following Board review and substantial membership input on this petition, and detailed analysis of this membership input, the Executive Committee made certain recommendations for modification of the draft petition; and

"WHEREAS, certain aspects of the petition nevertheless warrant further review, clarification and justification before the petition can be finalized;

"NOW, THEREFORE:

"1. The draft petition shall be amended in the following respects:

"a. In the segment 10.135 to 10.150 MHz, non-telephony emissions not to exceed 3 kHz bandwidth can be transmitted.

"b. Test transmissions authorized on most frequencies above 51 MHz shall not be permitted to be "continuous."

"c. Section 97.309 shall be clarified to specify that amateur stations may use any published digital code as long as other rules are observed.

"2. The Executive Committee shall, not later than June 30, 2005, further consider and evaluate the ramifications of retaining, deleting or amending section 97.221(b) and/or 97.221© regarding automatic control of digital emissions. This evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, the effect of these rules, and the effect of proposed changes in these rules, on APRS and other current and planned digital communications in the HF bands.

"3. The amended petition, and the Executive Committee's further report pursuant to #2 above, will be presented to the Board for its further consideration at the next Board meeting in July, 2005."

So far as I can tell, no other consideration is pending until that meeting.

[w5alt]

I think this is an April Fool's joke. There is nothing under consideration until the next EC meeting. YOu can read all about it in the QST spin article that K1ZZ always writes.

[ad4mg]

Good evening Albert! #I agree it is entirely possible that no additional consideration by the Executive Committee is anticipated until July, but it is reasonable to expect that this committee will listen to it's technical advisors, and the data I reference appears to be their most recent in the public domain.

The April 6 deadline for filing comments on this proposal was brought to my attention by 3 different ARRL members, who should be well-informed in this matter. #I have accepted their information as valid for the date used in this post.

I believe the information to be accurate, and even if presented a litle before the gun, it is informative!

73,
Luke

[N5PVL]

One of the WL2K group's internal propaganda memos has the following line:
Quote[/b] ]
Once again, we are asking you to write to David Sumner at bandwidth@arrl.org, and request the following:

Dave Sumner is into the WL2K scam up to his eyebrows, along with Jim Haynie.

That's who the comments go to.... Cute, huh?

I recently read that the head guy at IARU Region 1 saw the WL2K proposal and commented, "Look how crazy the ARRL is now!" If this report is true, then the gentleman's pithy comment hit the nail right on the head.

Haynie and Sumner are an embarassment. We deserve much better than to be scammed by the ARRL brass here at home, and embarassed in front of the international Amateur Radio community abroad.

Much has been made of the certainty of massive interference to US Amateurs if this scam succeeds. - But not one thought has been given to other Amateurs around the world, who will suffer just as much from the results of this corruption and stupidity, if not more.

Yes, we should shoot this WL2K scam down - but we should not stop there. It's time to 'take out the trash' at ARRL HQ, as a good first step in re-establishing our reputation as Amateurs with ourselves, and with the rest of the world.

Charles Brabham, #N5PVL

Director: USPacket (http://www.uspacket.org)
Admin: USPacket Digital Forum (http://www.uspacket.org/smf/index.php?board=1.0)
Admin: HamBlog.Com (http://www.hamblog.com)
Weblog: N5PVL's #Blog (http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php)

[N5PVL]

Straight from the horse's... mouth.
Quote[/b] ]
VERY IMPORTANT Update, March 23, 2005

HELP US KEEP AND ENHANCE WINLINK 2000. PLEASE RESPOND BY APRIL 6!

All,

Recently, we asked that all Winlink users write to the ARRL to save our
Winlink wideband (Pactor 3) operations on the 30 meter band. The ARRL had
just recommended the deletion of such operations on that band for all US
licensed Amateurs. Our users did respond to the request for opinions, and as
a result, the ARRL Executive Committee has now rescinded their original
recommendation to delete wideband digital operations on 30 meters.

Once again, we are asking you to write to David Sumner at
bandwidth@arrl.org, and request the following:

1. That bandwidth space be expanded for digital modes above 500 Hz, and that
semi-automatic operations be allowed outside the current very restricted
sub-bands. Semi-automatic operations are always initiated by human beings
who are capable of listening before they transmit.

2. That because sophisticated signal detection is planned for the Winlink
2000 semi-automatic operations, the unattended receiving end of Winlink 2000
will have built-in protection from interference. It is already available in
the modems we use. #Even without it, most QRM is avoided by those initiating
the connection listening carefully before they transmit. That you understand
there are additional inexpensive, and soon to be readily available,
technologies such as SCAMP now being beta tested for Winlink data transfer
that already deploy signal detection.

3. That your use of Winlink 2000 wideband mode (Pactor 3) is valuable to
you, and assists greatly with your personal safety and well-being (if it
does).

4. That under the current band plan, digital operations are cluttered,
without adequate space for normal operations. #The addition of additional
technologies, all crammed into the current limited space will make it
impossible to use.

5. That the future of the Amateur Radio service is dependent on viable
communications using enabling digial voice, image and data technologies, and
it is important that STATIC REGULATIONS not restrict future development of
these technologies as they change.

PLEASE use your own words, and if there is something else you wish to add,
please do.

PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS REQUEST BY THE ARRL TO PROVIDE YOUR EXPERIENCE AND
INFORMATION BY APRIL 6. IT IS CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF
WINLINK 2000, and other high bandwidth data transfer, voice and image
digital modes. Responding to their request for your opinion will help
keep Winlink 2000 alive. #Not responding may end the very service we
now provide.

Please do not leave it to others. Respond to David Sumner, CEO,
bandwidth@arrl.org. If you wish to also copy your ARRL Division Director,
save a copy, and we will soon put out another message with the States and
locations of each.

Thanks,

Steve, k4cjx

Nice of good old "honest Steve" to suggest that the WL2K group use thier own words, once he's told them what to say.

Dave Sumner is one of the people behind the WL2K scam, so the chances that he will seriously regard any comments he does not agree with are rather slim.

In the end, I am certain that we will be forced to air this dirty laundry before the FCC. The deal about commenting to bandwidth@arrl.org appears to be bogus - just another part of the scam being perpetrated upon US Amateurs by this clique within the ARRL.

I encourage all Amateurs to comment - but I won't lie and say that I believe any of our comments will be seriously considered. - Unless they are exactly what the scammers want to hear and publish.

Charles Brabham, #N5PVL

Director: USPacket (http://www.uspacket.org)
Admin: USPacket Digital Forum (http://www.uspacket.org/smf/index.php?board=1.0)
Admin: HamBlog.Com (http://www.hamblog.com)
Weblog: N5PVL's #Blog (http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php)

[wa3vjb]

If you want to hear what it will sound like to mix digital telemetry with signals copied by the human ear, just listen nighttime to 3990kc and up.

That's a 20kw Digital Radio Mondial from Germany cranking out that hash.

Even where permitted, digital specialties would deserve no special regulatory relief, protected spectrum, or exclusive frequency allocation, since all modes and activities enjoy equal status and the right to claim a free spot on the dial. Existing rules against deliberate interference provide a way to punish offenders.

If you agree, write to that blind email box as suggested here, and begin or continue a discussion with your "director" to keep them from saying they received little opposition to the scheme.

A radical overhaul in the regulatory structure is NOT the way to coordinate the various modes and activities in the Amateur Service. Such a move is especially inappropriate when used as a way to "promote" a revenue-based communications scheme.

[W8MW]

Many of us encouraged ARRL to start over with a process that’s not loaded with hidden agendas and biased toward the interests of a few at the expense of the majority of HF operators. #At the January 2005 board meeting they had an opportunity to demonstrate good stewardship and do the right thing. Didn’t happen.

ARRL now says they want to “get it right”. #Making tweaks to a fundamentally flawed petition written by a special interest committee with a self serving agenda isn’t going to get it right. #

It must be nice to be in the special interest group for whom all of this is being perpetrated. #Loading up the #mailbox at ARRL is a good tactic and might manipulate the numbers. #Stuff that box with enough quantity and the league can use the data to show how responsive they are to members. #Win-win!

Don’t worry about the individuals with a broader view of the amateur service who consider this petition as reckless and unnecessary. #Come comment time, a few hundred independent amateurs can’t possibly influence FCC as effectively as the Newington non profit that’s threatening to sue them.

73 Mike

[w5alt]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ April 02 2005,20:24)]... I agree it is entirely possible that no additional consideration by the Executive Committee is anticipated until July, but it is reasonable to expect that this committee will listen to it's technical advisors, ...
Now that is a novel idea. I congratulate your optimism ...

73,
Walt, W5ALT

[kb2vxa]

Hi VJB and all,

"But the group will not engage with its members or others who would be affected by their idea of using the FCC regulatory structure to promote embryonic modes that may never catch on in the Amateur Service. My own "director," Bernie Fuller, N3EFN, directly refused to discuss with me whether and why he favored or opposed the threatened petition.

We also have seen no public response to calls for a tally, pro and con, of the number of people who have chosen to respond to the ARRL's call for comments the past few months.

Although it's great that you're urging a response from people, there's a good basis to believe the comments proffered will meet the same fate as those submitted to the "polls" Haynie has highlighted on the Newington group's website.

A closed-door, backroom deal cooked up by a few people interested in digital specialties does not rely on a representative cross-section of the Amateur community."

You're beginning to catch on to the fact that "democracy" from the very start has been an elected dictatorship. Are we beginning to hear the faint echoes of "Taxation without representation is tyrany!" again? That's right, pay your dues and be ignored, "Just give me your money and piss off. Oh, here's your cheesy magazine, enjoy.".

[ai4ep]

Oh shucks...3 days too late.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] ]That the future of the Amateur Radio service is dependent on viable
communications using enabling digial voice, image and data technologies, and
it is important that STATIC REGULATIONS not restrict future development of
these technologies as they change.

The best way to prevent STATIC REGULATIONS from restricting future development in technologies as they change would be to get rid of subbands altogether, as Canada and most of the rest of the world already did years ago.

The complex matrix of present-day U.S. subbands based on licence class and emission mode prevents efficient use of the spectrum we are allocated. Look at the vast gaps of idle frequencies that lie between about 3550 and 3700 kHz, while other portions of 75/80 are congested beyond usability.

It would be up to the amateur community to come up with a workable band plan that could be shifted, without the necessity of government rulemaking action, as necessitated by evolving patterns of amateur radio activity.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ April 10 2005,04:18)]It would be up to the amateur community to come up with a workable band plan that could be shifted, without the necessity of government rulemaking action, as necessitated by evolving patterns of amateur radio activity.
I agree 100% ... the community of amateur radio operators, the same folks who will have to live with the new allocations should decide this matter. #Now if the ARRL was acting responsibly, they could be the focal point for this effort, but they have chosen their own agenda (nothing new in that approach).

They missed the boat on this one. #Having suffered terribly from past mistakes, here is a chance for the ARRL to renew its relationship with its members, a chance to heal some old wounds.

Something terrible happened in Newington to allow a minority as small as the WL2K crowd to have such a profound influence on this organization. #The current BOD is now "contaminated" with WL2K favored proposals, and there is no regard for the average amateur radio operator.

They have one last chance to "save face", and that's to remove the veil of secrecy, announce the tally of opinions submitted, and share some of the ides submitted. #I would wager that the comments submitted to this "blind" (appropriate terminology!) mailbox contain some very good ideas that don't punish the majority of amateurs, but yet allow some spectrum for new digital modes. #Not just WL2K, but all new digital modes.

Will the ARRL once again become a leader, an organization that amateurs would be proud to have represent their interests, or will they continue their shameful behavior? #The opportunity is right here in front of their faces, and they will reveal their true agenda with this proposal. #I hope they "see the light" on this one.

73,
Luke

[ad4mg]

A profound statement from the "Report of the Technology Task Force", dated January 21, 2005:

"The TTF believes regulatory authorization of bandwidths greater than 3 kHz below 29 MHz #for digital communication is not likely"

The participants:

Members: Howard Huntington, K9KM Chair
Tom Frenaye, K1KI
Mike Raisbeck, K1TWF
Paul Rinaldo, W4RI

ARRL Staff Liaison Ed Hare, W1RFI

At least some see the reality of the situation!

(edited to "bold" the above quotation)

[W8MW]

Quote[/b] ]AD4MG: ..the community of amateur radio operators, the same folks who will have to live with the new allocations should decide this matter. #Now if the ARRL was acting responsibly, they could be the focal point for this effort

Very well said Luke. #And very much in line with what FCC keeps telling us over and over. How many different ways does FCC have to say it: #voluntary band plans give amateurs the flexibility to adjust to changing operating interests and integrate new technologies. #

But flexibility is not an ingredient in the league's petition. They insist on government regulation of their band plans (along with new government regulations on our transmitters). #Insisting on the force of federal law behind their plan .. is it a smart play in the interest of amateur radio? #Or is it a power play by large egos? #

The petition is a one-shot attempt, a hail mary to re-shape HF bands into someone's agenda dictating what amateur radio needs to become. And not in evolutionary or incremental steps but in one great big wholesale change that penalize most active HF operators. This is the crux of the matter. #The agenda of a minority to get everything they want now no matter what the consequences ... verses the amateur community.

I am not an ARRL basher. #I am an ARRL member, at least for now. #However, it has become impossible for me to trust the motives of an outift turning a deaf ear to reasonable voices asking for fairness and common sense.
Right now it looks like our best chance for that will be with FCC who seems to have a higher opinion of ordinary amateurs than the league.

73 Mike

[wa3vjb]

Mike W8MW said --
Come comment time, a few hundred independent amateurs can’t possibly influence FCC as effectively as the Newington non profit that’s threatening to sue them.

Good one !
And good luck in the comments.
You are 5-9 Washington over over.
Traffic !
No traffic !
hi hi FB WX OM except it will rain on the League's parade

[WA2CWA]

This should make you guys happy. The latest word from the ARRL:

ARRL Executive Committee Readies Bandwidth Recommendations (http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1)

Pete, wa2cwa

[K7JBQ]

Quote[/b] (WA2CWA @ April 13 2005,13:34)]This should make you guys happy. The latest word from the ARRL:

ARRL Executive Committee Readies Bandwidth Recommendations (http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1)

Pete, wa2cwa
Hmmm,

It won't make the high-speed CW guys all that happy, since 200Hz represents a "speed limit" of approx. 50wpm.

73,
Bill

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (WA2CWA @ April 13 2005,16:34)]This should make you guys happy. The latest word from the ARRL:

ARRL Executive Committee Readies Bandwidth Recommendations (http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1)

Pete, wa2cwa
Welcome to "Hinternet" ... or "Amateur Internet"!!! #The big giveaway has started!!! #Prepare to lose more than 35% of your favorite bands ...

All so they can spew internet e-mail over HF, at the expense of 99% of amateur radio operators all over the world. #It's so thoughtful of us, the vast majority of amateur radio operators, to give up so much, for so few.

What a wonderful organization the ARRL is. #I must have missed the tally of responses to the bandwidth@arrl.org mailbox. #Surely they released the news that the proposal was heavily favored by all who responded. #The ARRL wouldn't ignore the voice of amateur radio operators, now would they?

I'll now write the CEO of AOL just so he has complete knowledge that WL2K and it's amateur internet network handles more than 150,000 e-mails a month, and wants to expand their business by several magnitudes. #They should be very pleased.

[K0RGR]

A quick look at the proposal doesn't result in 'shock and awe', but I'm sure there'll be lots of opposition, not just from the anti-WinLink crowd, but from people who see any expansion of the phone bands as 'blasphemy'.

My only initial objection is that it retains the limit on NBFM to 29 Mhz. and up. There is no reason that this shouldn't be extended down to 28.7 or even lower in the 10 meter band. Let's put all those 10 meter FM rigs to real use, someplace where they won't interfere with the satellite band and the AMers. We don't need any more repeaters on that band, but some more simplex frequencies would be great.

It looks like the second 100 Khz. of each of our bands might become something of a war zone until the different groups figure out how to avoid interfering with each other.
I predict that for most folks, it will be a non-event, and might be a plus. Contests will be an interesting time, though - ARRL better limit their contests to the traditional bands for the different modes, or there will be chaos - and better hope CQ and others do the same.

[W8MW]

Quote[/b] ]K7JBQ: It won't make the high-speed CW guys all that happy, since 200Hz represents a "speed limit" of approx. 50wpm.

That was one of my immediate concerns when they first announced the petition, saying their 200 Hz limit will accommodate all CW speeds human operators are able to decode by ear. This is quite a revelation, suggesting the league knows how fast the fastest CW operator is. #Strangely, no actual speed number is identified. #The occupied bandwidth chart they referenced can be used to put speed limits on both sending speed and rise/fall times of transmitter keying circuits. #The chart has never before been used as a law book, only as a calculator to indicate the bandwidth needed if the operator chooses to send at a given speed, chooses to operate his transmitter with given keying constants and is operating in fading or non fading band conditions.

This is the first time since continuous wave replaced spark that bandwidth limits are being proposed on CW operations for any radio service. #I suppose that's no big deal to people not interested in high speed CW. #But what about all the other limits ARRL wants on amateur transmitters running SSB and AM?

Keep in mind the ARRL petition is not just for band plans but also includes explicit regulation of transmitter bandwidth. #Under existing regulations we enjoy much flexibility and wiggle-room allowing us to use all types of transmitting equipment like kits, boat anchors, homebrew rigs. #We are also free to modify our transmitters and make adjustments affecting the RF footprint. That's a rare freedom granted to the amateur service because of its experimental nature. #The league is so sure their way is the only way, they are willing to give away this freedom in exchange for tight regulations. #

If nothing else about their petition bothered me (but a lot about it does) the single issue of more regulation on our transmitters is enough to conclude they are moving in a direction that's damaging to amateur radio.

73 Mike

[n2ncs]

There are enough "concerned" hams over the issue of using hf internet that no one will use it. You will probably find AM carriers being thrown all over that segmant rendering it useless. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K7JBQ]

What the League has failed to consider is that "HF Internet" has every bit the potential for disrupting amateur communications as does BPL.

Might as well call it BA, or Broadband via Antenna.

73,
Bill

[wa3vjb]

It puzzles me they are setting themselves up for such an embarrassing failure, what with the open, authoritative work the ad hoc committees have done to explore and dispute the validity of the threatened scheme of the Newington group.

Mike, W8MW said:

Right now it looks like our best chance for that will be with FCC who seems to have a higher opinion of ordinary amateurs than the league.


This can be taken two ways, and each seems true.:

The FCC holds the League in lower regard.

The League holds "ordinary amateurs" in lower regard.

If the threatened petition moves ahead, watch QRZ.com for a complete primer on how to file comments with the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System, and please start giving some thought to what you'd want to say, if you haven't already.

Paul/VJB
Annapolis

[W8MW]

Paul, you're right about my goof in syntax. Fortunately in this case, I'm not too embarassed by either possible interpretation. hi hi But what I meant to say is in their recent rulings FCC has expressed a greater appreciation for the fundamental values of amateur radio and its participants than what we've see coming from the league.

Knowing that you have filed some excellent comments to ECFS in the past, I'm sure any tips you'd care to offer will be helpful to everyone.

73 Mike

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ April 14 2005,13:23)]Right now it looks like our best chance for that will be with FCC who seems to have a higher opinion of ordinary amateurs than the league.


This can be taken two ways, and each seems true.:

The FCC holds the League in lower regard.

The League holds "ordinary amateurs" in lower regard.

If the threatened petition moves ahead, watch QRZ.com for a complete primer on how to file comments with the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System, and please start giving some thought to what you'd want to say, if you haven't already.

Paul/VJB
Annapolis
A lot of truth in that statement. #I have no illusions that the ARRL gives a dang about anything ordinary amateurs care about. #They have their own agenda to tend to. #And ... I think the FCC may see some of the ARRL's finest efforts as ill-conceived at best, this being one of them.

Hopefully the FCC doesn't regard the average Joe in the same light, and when this flawed proposal is submitted, opposing comments will have an impact.

I had to forbid myself to post again until I regained my sanity, which I have. #I was really upset with the pure disregard for the 99% of amateurs who do not wish to spew internet e-mail over our HF bands, and the total arrogance of those who think we will roll over and play dead for them. #What became of comments sent to the blind mailbox (bandwidth@arrl.org)? #Will the ARRL ever release what was sent to them? #It appears that the blind mailbox was a distraction only to sidetrack us while they finished their dirty work behind closed doors.

Please note that the proposal, when read very carefully, allows 3 kHz digital access to all of our frequencies, excluding the slivers allocated to 200 Hz (CW) operations. #So, SSB operators will, according to the pretty color charts, tolerate digital and share their bandwidth too.

I intend to do another in-depth analysis of this modified proposal (which is worse than the 1st one), and post the results here tonight.

Best 73,
Luke

[W8MW]

Luke, I meant to thank you before for starting this thread. #For quite some time, the topic went below the radar and wasn't getting the public exposure and discussion it deserves. # #

Here is a time line you might find interesting. #All quotes from ARRL web site:

July 2004 – Ad Hoc Committee on ARES Communications final report and recommendations to ARRL board:

“Winlink 2000, a Worldwide Amateur Radio Digital Radio Email Network, will allow delivery of message traffic anywhere in the World where Internet services are active, or amateur Winlink Participating Network stations (PMBOs) are operating. The delivery of these messages may be accomplished automatically in a matter of minutes using simple SMTP email formatting … It is recommended that the Board endorse the use of Winlink 2000 …”

July 2004 – minutes of board meeting:

“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the ARRL Board commends the members of the ad-hoc committee for their efforts and expertise in inaugurating the current network; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ARRL Board encourages further development and expansion of the inaugural network to broaden the coverage and continue its expansion; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board encourages the deployment of e-mail via Amateur Radio (as exemplified by Winlink 2000) as an additional emergency capability provided to agencies served by ARES.“

August 2004 – Planned ARRL Petition to the FCC to Regulate Subbands by Bandwidth:

“… the ARRL plans to file a petition with the FCC seeking the regulation of amateur subbands by bandwidth rather than by mode of emission ...The main objective is to make appropriate provision for digital modes in the HF amateur bands ... Before the petition was drafted, expert advice was sought from the amateur HF digital community.”

April 2005– ARRL Executive Committee Readies Bandwidth Recommendations:

"We are in the early stages of a dramatic shift in amateur HF operating patterns, and it's impossible to predict where this shift may lead," Sumner said …the EC's proposals would permit semi-automatic control (ie, with a control operator at the querying station) throughout the amateur HF bands.”

They pretty much say it all in their own words. #I would only add, if there is a dramatic shift in amateur HF operating patterns it will be the result of what the league is trying to do to amateur radio. #And no, it's not impossible to predict what will happen if email robots are turned loose in the phone bands.

73 Mike

[ae4fa]

There was never any point in forwarding comments to the ARRL, fellas.

Save your ammunition for the FCC - and then use ALL of it!

[w5alt]

Actually the ARRL still has not answered the questions asked of it. Mr. Haynie asked for data and facts on the last ARRL proposal and in return was asked to provide the data and facts that the ARRL used to make its proposal.

They provided none, which is probably indicative of how much real study and information went into the proposal. Somehow I find it hard to believe that much more has gone into the one that is going to be ram-rodded to the FCC.

Of course, simply providing the data and facts, like real numbers and technical stuff, would go a long ways towards changing my mind. Otherwise I guess we'll have to present the data and facts to the FCC, if the ARRL won't.

73,
Walt, W5ALT

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (ae4fa @ April 14 2005,20:47)]There was never any point in forwarding comments to the ARRL, fellas.

Save your ammunition for the FCC - and then use ALL of it!
I have no doubt that your exactly right Bob. #Although Sumner says "the League has sought member's comments on specific concepts twice since August of last year", he doesn't say how or if these comments are evaluated or used.

I wanted to offer an analysis of this proposal, but the possibilities it creates are complex, and I don't want to be anything but 100% accurate. #I'll continue to work on this.

Quote[/b] (w8mw @ April 14 2005,18:37)]
I would only add, if there is a dramatic shift in amateur HF operating patterns it will be the result of what the league is trying to do to amateur radio.

Mike, those are the same words that popped into my mind when I read that paragraph! #I personally see a modest change in HF operating patterns, which could suggest modest change in band allocations to accommodate the new folks, but the process the ARRL puts all of us through seems to be excessively painful. #The proposal also appears excessive in its generosity towards WL2K, but WL2K is the digital big boy right now, and that could change. #There's always a better way to build a mousetrap!

Also, this proposal is not yet complete. #Many key points have to be addressed, such as enforcement and mitigation of interference issues. #BPL taught us not to wait for accpetable mitigation procedures before opening "Pandora's Box". #And the amateur community in its entireity must be involved in drafting up any voluntary bandplan ... not just the ARRL. #They do not represent the amateur radio service, only a minority number of amateur operators, in spite of what they say. #I would certainly never accept that they represent me personally, although I may have benifitted from their past actions in areas such as spectrum preservation, which seems to be one of the few things they are actually fairly good at doing.

It is good, in my opinion, to keep the discussions alive. #This proposal should be scrutinized from every possible angle before any consideration of acceptance by the amateur community.

73,Luke

[wa3vjb]

Mike,

Thanks for compiling some of the comments and writings of the group in Newington to help illustrate the basis for the threatened petition from the League.

Such published material, combined with the archived work of our ad hoc committees here on QRZ.com, eham.net, and various email reflectors, will become a strong documented basis to challenge the ARRL's misguided scheme, should their people be foolhardy enough to submit it to federal regulators for consideration.

Paul/VJB
Annapolis

[WB2RJR]

Quote[/b] ]July 2004 – Ad Hoc Committee on ARES Communications final report and recommendations to ARRL board:

“Winlink 2000, a Worldwide Amateur Radio Digital Radio Email Network, will allow delivery of message traffic anywhere in the World where Internet services are active, or amateur Winlink Participating Network stations (PMBOs) are operating. The delivery of these messages may be accomplished automatically in a matter of minutes using simple SMTP email formatting … It is recommended that the Board endorse the use of Winlink 2000 …”
W8MW

"anywhere in the World"

Mike
Did I miss something? I thought third party traffic was illegal in most of the world.

It would also appear to me that the use of amateur radio to bypass commercially available email access is the use of amateur radio with a pecuniary interest. The RV, boat, and missionary people who are using amateur radio for email are doing so simply to not pay for the commercially available service. As such I regard this as illegal operation. I believe this needs to be pointed out to not only the FCC but also to those who have invested greatly to expand and provide email/internet services to people where no landline is available.(eg radio or satellite email/internet providers).

VJB
Paul,
As I recall you did an excellent job putting down the step by step process to get through the FCC's electronic filing system on the AM forum a year or so ago. I wanted to thank you for that and I hope you will do it again (on every forum) if this stupidity ever makes it to the FCC for comment.

Thanks again & 73

Marty WB2RJR

[WB2RJR]

In case you thought I was kidding...........


http://radioministries.org/
"We are extremely excited about Winlink, and what it can do for missionaries working in the field. In fact, that is the main reason we started RadioMinistries.
Winlink 2000 Utilizes enabling technologies and sound operating practices to provide a full-featured radio digital message transfer system, worldwide. E-mail transfer, position reporting, weather and bulletin services, and emergency communications are now available to missionaries in remote areas through amateur radio by linking HF radio to the Internet.
With a Winlink 2000 capable radio set up, and the Airmail software program, missionaries in the field can now connect to one of the many Winlink PMBOs via HF radio. A portable station can be set up and a connection made whenever the missionaries want to send and pick up their E-mail. They also have the option of posting position reports, which can be accessed over the internet. Critical weather information as well as other bulletins can be recieved. And all without any connection or airtime charges ! See the Winlink for missions Website or the main Winlink 2000 Website for more details.
Airmail works very much like Microsoft Outlook, with mailboxes, address books, and even a spell checker. Small attachments (under 25KB) are also possible. Airmail's autoconnect mode can also provide a direct link between base and mobile stations without going through Winlink or the Internet. See more information on the Winlink for missions and relief Website the Airmail 2000 Website or our systems page."

PLEASE note the following

"And all without any connection or airtime charges" Also note that in the original at the website this is in BOLD print.

THIS is an ILLEGAL use of amateur radio!

Now, I suppose you can wait for this stupidity to issue forth from the ARRL, or perhaps we should stop this illegal use of our frequencies now.


73, Marty WB2RJR

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (WB2RJR @ April 14 2005,09:25)]THIS is an ILLEGAL use of amateur radio!

Now, I suppose you can wait for this stupidity to issue forth from the ARRL, or perhaps we should stop this illegal use of our frequencies now.


73, Marty WB2RJR
Marty,

The problem we have is how do you monitor the content of the messages?

73,

Mark N5RFX

[WB2RJR]

Quote[/b] ]Marty,

The problem we have is how do you monitor the content of the messages?

73,

Mark N5RFX
Mark,
Although the message content may be a problem (you have to BUY their modem to see it) and This cannot possibly be checked, since this is an automatic data transfer.(are you going to read 150,000 emails a month to make sure non contain business?).

But that is not my main point. The use of amateur radio, regardless of message content, to bypass paying the fees of a commercial service is a violation of Part 97. This is the use of amateur radio for monetary reasons.

Clearly the case for missionaries, boat owners and RV people....and maybe a great many others as well.

73, Marty WB2RJR

[K0RGR]

Yes, if they're really competing with a commercial service, that's wrong.

However, I'm not aware of any Internet Service Providers in the jungles. I know there is satellite service available in parts of North America, but I don't know about elsewhere, and I don't know how portable it is. If portable satellite Internet stations were common, there'd be no need for Amateur emergency communications at all, so I don't think they're terribly common.

But, heck, I'd be interested in knowing what FCC thinks. Turn them in Marty.

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (WB2RJR @ April 15 2005,03:25)]In case you thought I was kidding...........


http://radioministries.org/
"We are extremely excited about Winlink, and what it can do for missionaries working in the field. In fact, that is the main reason we started RadioMinistries.
Winlink 2000 Utilizes enabling technologies and sound operating practices to provide a full-featured radio digital message transfer system, worldwide. E-mail transfer, position reporting, weather and bulletin services, and emergency communications are now available to missionaries in remote areas through amateur radio by linking HF radio to the Internet.
With a Winlink 2000 capable radio set up, and the Airmail software program, missionaries in the field can now connect to one of the many Winlink PMBOs via HF radio. A portable station can be set up and a connection made whenever the missionaries want to send and pick up their E-mail. They also have the option of posting position reports, which can be accessed over the internet. Critical weather information as well as other bulletins can be recieved. And all without any connection or airtime charges ! See the Winlink for missions Website or the main Winlink 2000 Website for more details.
Airmail works very much like Microsoft Outlook, with mailboxes, address books, and even a spell checker. Small attachments (under 25KB) are also possible. Airmail's autoconnect mode can also provide a direct link between base and mobile stations without going through Winlink or the Internet. See more information on the Winlink for missions and relief Website the Airmail 2000 Website or our systems page."

PLEASE note the following

"And all without any connection or airtime charges" Also note that in the original at the website this is in BOLD print.

THIS is an ILLEGAL use of amateur radio!

Now, I suppose you can wait for this stupidity to issue forth from the ARRL, or perhaps we should stop this illegal use of our frequencies now.


73, Marty WB2RJR
Hi marty...

Nice find.. Exactly what we need more evidence that this whole things is about greed and wants of a few.. and yes even a religious organization should have to follow the rules..

Good work..
Now if some ISP wants to setup a service for them and give them free acess to a non amateur radio internet link more power to em..

73 Jerry n9lya

[wa3vjb]

Marty said --
The use of amateur radio, regardless of message content, to bypass paying the fees of a commercial service is a violation of Part 97. This is the use of amateur radio for monetary reasons.

It may be good to clarify that the use of amateur radio for "pecuniary interest" or monetary reasons is what's prohibited.

The idea of bypassing the paying of fees is but one manifestation of that. This means there's no prequisite of having a commerical rival to establish a prohibited use.

Examples include a celebrated ham radio function underway on the island of Grenada about 20 years ago, where U.S. troops had landed during an insurrection.

A network television anchor wished to interview American students at a medical school there, who were using ham radio for health and welfare communications. There was no alternate means of reaching anyone on the island, but the FCC said such an interview was prohibited because it served the pecuniary interest of that network.

My humble reading of the radio internet concept is that yes, it provides both a communications path and, for non-commercial traffic, a legitimate means of exchanging information.

The trick is making sure non-emergency traffic is also non-commercial. That test is not automatically passed simply because the parties are religious or non-profit groups, who, for example, should probably use satellite phones or other means to order food and supplies, or conduct other "business" that strays beyond the ordinary chit-chat among hobbyists on the radio.

The maritime use of amateur radio provides a similar case study where activity is controlled as to the type of traffic allowed. Emergency use can include unlicensed operators. Non-emergency use still prohibits, as far as I know, the arrangement of dockage, freight, or other traffic that can be handled on high seas shortwave/marine frequencies.

A separate FCC license is required for high seas maritime radio.

I'm interested in comments from people with more familiarity since this may provide another angle to challenge the threatened petition from the little non-profit group in Newington.

Paul/VJB
Annapolis

[W8MW]

Luke: #No kidding about the layers of complexity because of multiple agendas in play … and the long list of potential consequences. #I’ll stay tuned for your analysis.

Walt: #Like you I question how much real study and information went into the proposal. #It appears the decision to request additional regulations on amateur transmitters was made without input from RF experts. #This is a purely technical matter that should be addressed in technical terms. #Opening up this can of worms places a compliance burden on amateurs and an enforcement burden on FCC. #The compelling need for more #regulation should be fully explained by the people asking for it. #Instead, we get this “technical” explaination: #Sumner points out that amateurs would not have to be able to measure the bandwidth of their signals.

Marty: #Thanks for those good points. #The pecuniary interest issue deserves scrutiny. #On another thead a doctor said he saved a patient's life by using Winlink while he was vacationing on his boat (yacht?). #Was that amateur radio's finest hour ... or was it using amateur radio as a free ISP to provide paid professional services? #I don't know. #Wonder how many ham radio email transactions involve the office, the stock broker, the Mercedes dealership, etc.

Mark: Your question about monitoring message content makes me wonder about the legality (or suitability) of any protocol that raises the question in the first place. # #

73 Mike

[wa3vjb]

In 1993, Amateur Radio Newsline carried this report that may provide some history and context to interpret what the missionary group is doing by promoting a ham radio-based internet email system.

------
FROM 1993

The FCC acted on July 15 to amend the Part 97.113 of the
amateur service rules to permit limited business communications
to take place on the ham bands. The commission said that it was
taking this action in order to allow amateur operators more
flexibility in providing communications for public service
projects as well as to enhance the value of the amateur service
in satisfying personal communications needs.
The international Radio Regulations define amateur radio as a
communications service. A service that exists for the purpose of
self training, intercommunication and technical investigations
carried out by amateurs. The same rules define amateur operators
as duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely
with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.
Part 97 of the commission's Rules prohibits amateur stations
from transmitting any communications the purpose of which is to
facilitate the business or commercial affairs of any party, or as
an alternative to other authorized radio services. Once
implemented, the changes will allow the amateur service to expand
its public service capabilities and to provide greater
flexibility for personal communications. They will also
permit licensees to use amateur service frequencies to facilitate
events such as races and parades, to support educational
activities, to provide personal communications such as making
appointments and ordering food, to collect data for the National
Weather Service, and to provide assistance voluntarily even
where there are other authorized radio services available.
In simple terms, the example constantly used at his
conventions and hamfest talks by FCC Private Radio Bureau Chief
Ralph Haller, N4RH, was that such a change would make it legal
for a ham to order a pizza over the local autopatch.

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


Complete "Newsline" report here (http://www.arnewsline.org/newsline_archives/Cbbs082.txt)

[K0RGR]

OK - the problem with challenging the use of WinLink for bypassing commercial services is that the exact same arguments could be used to declare all forms of phone patch and autopatch activity illegal - probably moreso. I don't know if there are any satellite Internet services available worldwide, but I believe that satellite telephones are, though they are beyond the means of most of us. But urban dwellers using autopatches when cheap cellphones are available are obviously just cheating the phone company, right?

When we start throwing those kind of stones, we break a lot of windows. It's best to keep those rocks in our pockets.

I agree that there's lots of reason to be concerned. I've changed my position on dropping the code requirement for General Class because I'm afraid we'll see a flood of new WinLinkers on 20 meters - similar to the 'cellphone No Code Technicians' who swelled our ranks in previous decades. I am still hoping to see HF priveleges for Techs, but not on 20 meters - I think that would be enough to stop the flood.

Since 20 meters is where the maximum pain is likely to occur, that is where everyone should concentrate their efforts to get a good set of rules. I think what's been proposed doesn't look too bad, but I think we should all ask that the Commission continue to require a code test for access to 20 meters, regardless of their other actions in the Restructuring proposal. Otherwise, this change could lead to real problems. I've told my ARRL director and all the others that, too.

[WB2RJR]

http://www.pacsea.net/html/ruling.html

“Restrictions on amateur radio operators
As noted above, amateur radio operators are subject to operational and technical conditions. In Australia, these operating conditions are set out in the Radiocommunications Licence Conditions (Amateur Licence) Determination No. 1 of 1997. These licence conditions are designed primarily to minimise interference between amateurs and between amateurs and other spectrum users. Some conditions were imposed for national security reasons, such as the restriction on amateurs connecting to the public switched telecommunications network. This condition was initially imposed during World War II.
This condition prohibits amateur operators from using some new technologies, such as WinLink 2000. WinLink 2000 is a digital radio communications system developed for amateur radio operators. It allows the transfer of email files and other information over amateur radio. Features of WinLink include a radio email service, worldwide weather information and position reporting. The system relies on a network of amateur stations in countries around the world (Anthony Van Vugt, sub. 14).
Amateur radio operators in Australia are unable to use the WinLink system because they are prohibited from connecting to the public switched telecommunications network under s. 11 of the amateur licence conditions determination. The Commission has received a large number of submissions from the international yachting community requesting that the regulations governing amateur radio in Australia be changed to allow the use of WinLink.
The submissions’ main argument is that WinLink could provide a safety-of-life service for recreational cruisers in Australian waters and nearby high seas. This raises a number of issues.
First, the WinLink system has the potential to generate significant additional traffic, resulting in congestion in the amateur bands.
(Beginning of page 237)
Moreover, it could be generated by unlicensed users, violating the ITU regulation that amateur operators be licensed. This increased traffic may affect the ability of other amateurs to access these bands, thereby undermining the original purposes of amateur bands (such as experimentation and innovation).
Second, a WinLink system may be regarded as a network unit under the Telecommunications Act 1997. If so, whoever was responsible for running the system would be required by law to obtain a carrier licence from the ACA, pay carrier licence fees ($10 000 a year) and contribute to funding the universal service obligation.
Third, transfer of third party traffic (which would include email messages sent via WinLink) between amateurs in other countries (that is, amateurs in one country transferring third party traffic with amateurs in another country) must be authorised by international treaties between the relevant countries. This can be a time-consuming process if a treaty does not already exist. Australia currently has treaties with only five countries: the United States, Canada, the Solomon Islands, Israel and Honduras (ACA 2001b).
Fourth, although WinLink may enhance maritime safety, it is not a safety-of-life service. It is a ‘store and forward’ data system and thus a poor substitute for instantaneous communications (Phillip Collins and Associates, sub. 58). In most instances, vessels in distress rely on voice transmissions via radio. In addition, it is recommended that all vessels carry emergency position-indicating radio beacons for emergencies. They are small, self-contained, battery operated radio transmitters that provide position information via satellite to emergency authorities for at least 48 hours (ACA 2001k).
Fifth, WinLink is only available to yachts with a registered amateur on board. Other commercial email services are available to all yacht owners with a legitimate vessel call sign. Based on these arguments, the Commission does not intend to recommend changes to the amateur radio operator licence conditions to allow the use of WinLink 2000.”

[NY7Q]

Boycott the ARRL. Resign from the arrl. They are ruining ham radio. Haynie and his henchmen are an embarrassment to radio. ham radio is electronic experimenting, CW, and Phone. Nothing else is needed. You digital guys go to hell where you belong.

[vk4akp]

G'day. Can anyone tell me where online I can read the information on Bandwidth limits for packet modes on HF as set out by the US? I am trying to encourage Kantronics to include 1200 Baud PSK and the NewPSK Q15X25 Packet in future firmware releases for their Kam XL DSP TNC's. Already these modes are used here in Australia using Sound Card software. But TNC's would be
so much better for remote sites etc.

P.S. Did I just waste hundreds of dollars buying 2x Kam XL's for our 4 port HF gateway? Is Packet now officially dead on HF in the US? I have no interest in buying Pactor III TNC's. Pactor I was bad enough at flogging the hell out of a radio RX/TX switching wise.

Thanks,
Ken.
.-.-.
vk4akp@yahoo.com.au

[N5PVL]

vk4akp say:
Quote[/b] ]
P.S. Did I just waste hundreds of dollars buying 2x Kam XL's for our 4 port HF gateway? Is Packet now officially dead on HF in the US? I have no interest in buying Pactor III TNC's. Pactor I was bad enough at flogging the hell out of a radio RX/TX switching wise.

Thanks,
Ken.
.-.-.
vk4akp@yahoo.com.au

The HF Packet nets in the US are listed ( along with other digital ARS resources and networks ) at http://www.uspacket.org ...

USPacket is the organization that supports networked digital amateur radio in the United States. - You are unlikely to find relevant or up to date info on this subject anywhere else.

Charles Brabham, #N5PVL

Director: USPacket (http://www.uspacket.org)
Admin: HamBlog.Com (http://www.hamblog.com)
Webmaster: HamPoll.Com (http://www.hampoll.com)
Weblog: N5PVL's #Blog (http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php)

[AF4K]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ April 01 2005,17:31)]It is my understanding that the proposal, in it's current form, will allow WL2K stations control of nearly 40% of ALL of our current allocations in the 10, 15, 20, 40, and 80 meter bands. This does not include their efforts to swallow up 1/2 of the 30 meter band. CW users will give up the most when you consider that these users will share their remaining bandwidth with all "narrow" digital modes ... which is everything BUT WL2K. Also, packet radio will forever be laid to rest on the HF bands, as the proposal will eliminate those miniscule parts of the bands for their auto-forwarding.

If it's OK with you to give up 40% of your favorite bands to internet e-mail spewing Pactor III robots, then disregard this message, and your wish will come true. The ARRL is wearing blinders, and can only see one direction at this time, and that's WL2K.
EXCELLENT, LUKE!

Thank you so much for this helpful and informative post.

I see QRZ has removed the thread started by KH6TY on htis topic. Strange indeed.

I like the more sensible digital modes (NOT the destructive, wasteful Winlink) and I use several of the other, better modes,
but here is some interesting food for thought:

QUOTE

From "The Times" in the U.K.

By Mark Henderson
April 16, 2005

DOTTY and old-fashioned means of communication can still be the best: Morse code has seen off the challenge of the text message in a contest pitting the best in 19th-century technology against its 21st-century successor.

The race to transmit a simple message, staged by an Australian museum, was won — at a dash — by a 93-year-old telegraph operator who tapped it out using the simple system which was devised by Samuel Morse in 1832 and was the mainstay of maritime communication up until 1997.

Gordon Hill, who learnt to use the technique in 1927 when he joined the Australian Post Office, easily defeated his 13-year-old rival, Brittany Devlin, who was armed with a mobile phone and a rich vocabulary of text message shorthand. Mr Hill, whose messages were transcribed by another telegraph veteran, Jack Gibson, 82, then repeated the feat against three other children and teenagers with mobile phones.

In the competition, at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, Mr Hill and his rivals were asked to transmit a line selected at random from an advertisement in a teenage magazine.

It read: “Hey, girlfriend, you can text all your best pals to tell them where you are going and what you are wearing.” While the telegraphist tapped out the line in full, to be deciphered by Mr Gibson, Miss Devlin employed text slang to save time. She keyed: “hey gf u can txt ur best pals 2 tel them wot u r doing, where ur going and wot u r wearing.”

Just 90 seconds after Mr Hill began transmitting, Mr Gibson announced that he had the message received and written down correctly. It took another 18 seconds for Miss Devlin’s message to reach the mobile phone belonging to her friend. Mr Hill said that he was impressed by modern technology, even though his clunky telegraph machine emerged on top in three further contests. Text messaging, he said, had even been predicted by one of his colleagues in 1961.

“An engineer told me the day would come when we would be able to send messages without wires,” he said. Miss Devlin said that she had two years of texting experience. “I send about three messages a day,” she said. “I used to send lots more but I ran out of credit.”

END QUOTE...