ARRL and AM. minute #64, July 19-20, 2002

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by W0TDH, Aug 15, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
  1. W8FAX

    W8FAX Ham Member QRZ Page

    Another survey........
    Did he mention that all the other services that use CW,AM,and SSB will have to "get some new stuff going" also. If the ARRL and the FCC is bent on boiling everything down to PSK and the likes, I guess I won't be around to see it. One thing though, with no-one to blame but themselves, the ARRL does NOT represent anywhere near the majority of hams, and united we DO have a voice. It's been proven...........
    BTW....CW is NOT in a sub band. Everthing else IS. Don't know why that's so hard to figure out........
     
  2. W0TDH

    W0TDH Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wa3vjb @ Aug. 28 2002,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Regarding letters we write to League officials, he said that a region's Director is solely responsible for answering complaints or inquiries from that ham's area (League member or not), and that it is established protocol for other Directors and Vice-Directors to defer to the region matching the ham's location for any requested response.

    I said there would still seem to be advantages to seeking a consensus of Director opinions on what would become a national, not local, ARRL action. To that, he said that the League president is the one who handles such inquiries, to speak on behalf of the Board as a whole; hence his phone call.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm........and here I thought the DUES PAYING Members of the A.R.R.L.were/are in-charge and the President and all other Directors/Officers were in OFFICE at the pleasure of the Rank and File. Gosh, where have I gone wrong ?
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [We then moved the discussion elsewhere, and he advised us that &quot;you don't kick a sleeping dog,&quot; explaining that the Board had no intention of considering issues beyond digital compatibility in the CW-only segments, &quot;but,&quot; he said, referring to those of us who have been raising an alarm, &quot;now that they're talking about AM, maybe we'd better take a look at it.&quot;]

    Sounds like intimidation to me folks.

    By way, I have that same phrasing from the President
    in an e mail to me. I did not like it then, nor now, seeing it again from another source.

    The fate of Minute 64 needs to be put to a vote of the Members of the A.R.R.L. and not left to one or even a few individual(s) to dictate the out come of such an important matter as this issue. These are the foundation blocks of Amateur Radio. They ( ARRL ) are suggesting that these foundation blocks can/could be changed in the near term.

    Lets see; Imagine a group of machines talking away to each other and no one is home......boy, does that sound exciting ! New fangled of course, proper bandwidths to be sure ! They just don't need the Ham behind the mike any more.....:( Is that what we are wanting more of ?
    Less room then for CW for sure. No getting around it. Have you been on CW of late ? Dodging the MACHINES is a chore at times. 1.5 KW blasting away to another machine. Man thats Hamming [​IMG]
    The ARRL is wanting MORE of this type of Ops.......I for one am not impressed.
    By George don't we have enough of that kind of operation now [​IMG]

    There was a time when if you wanted to experiment with modes requiring wide band widths you did it on the higher bands above six mtrs.

    By the way, who benifits from this new stuff anyway. I mean who makes the profit from it ? If the rules do not change then I guess no one does.......

    Like it or not, writing, e mailing or phoning your Director/Officer of the A.R.R.L. DOES do some good.

    Tom - K0PJG
    Life Member A.R.R.L.
     
  3. W8FAX

    W8FAX Ham Member QRZ Page

    Tom:....

    Here is a copy of the email I sent to our Great Lakes Manager:

    I am emailing you in response to a potential proposal by the ARRL. Once again the &quot;powers&quot; have jumped into something that has not been researched properly and has caused much confusion, even among those who disseminate information about ARRL activities. The move towards trying to segregate the bands by modes/bandwitdh and or to try and limit bandwidths is a ludicrous idea. The response has been from ARRL managers, that the proposal is only going to be about digital. IF that were true, then why didn't the minutes SAY that. Myself and many others do NOT understand why the ARRL has to constantly trying to &quot;FIX&quot; something. A limitation of bandwidth could very possibly render thousands of dollars of equipment to become unusable. It could also drive many current operators who enjoy building and experimenting, away from ham radio, and drive a further wedge between the ARRL and ham operators. The ARRL is constantly bemoaning the fact that the amateur population is decreasing, and no new operators are replacing those that drop out. If this is true, then WHY do you need to change the current spectrum laws. If you tune across the band now at any time, save contest events, a good part of most of the bands are not even in use. It would make more sense to try and utilize THESE areas. I think there are far more important issues at hand than fixing something that works. If the ARRL handles this in the usual way, we may get something back from the FCC that we REALLY weren't shooting for, and will take forever to reverse. Thanks for Looking........Al Tanner/W8FAX

    AND the answer I rcved back..............

    Alan,

    Good morning! And thanks for writing.

    I am hearing a lot about the AM issue lately. First, let me assure
    you that there was no intent to end nor to relegate AM in Director Frenaye's
    motion. I have discussed this with Dave Sumner who assures me that AM is not
    the target here and is safe.

    But I will be vigilant on this issue and &quot;keep my ear to the ground.&quot;

    73, Gary KI4LA
     
  4. W0DZ

    W0DZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    I am an ARRL Life member (and a member since 1966) and proud of it. I'm tired of reading all the anti-ARRL tirades here. I needed ARRL's help to fight a court case regarding deed restrictions when I was 18, and they helped my dad's lawyer greatly. ARRL publishes the widest ranging literature for old and new hams anywhere. ARRL runs some of the best contests around.

    See if *you* can get consensus on anything when there are 680,000 people involved. It can't be done. Some people will always disagree. But that doesn't mean you have to bash them in general.

    Someone here said ARRL doesn't represent most hams. Let's look at that. There are about 680,000 hams in the U.S. today. It has historically been the case that about 50% are inactive, and I think that holds today too. That leaves 340,000 active hams. Many of those are Techs who got their licenses to operate 2M FM. Most of hamdom's fights don't concern them. They don't plan to ever have HF antennas. They don't participate in clubs or public service or experimentation. They are basically freeloaders. I think that's about half of the active Techs, or about 80,000. They don't typically need ARRL for anything. If ham radio died, they'd sell their rigs and they wouldn't care. So, we're down to about 260,000 active hams who care about ham radio. Right now, there are 166,000 ARRL members. That's 63%.

    So I think it is unfair to say ARRL does not represent ham radio. They represent a majority of active hams. Many of those members disagree with them on occasion. But most people feel we're better off with them than without them.

    Have you read a QST lately? It's pretty darn good. I know because they've published 3 of my articles! [​IMG] And the Handbook is really well done, especially in the area of DSP. It's better than my textbooks.

    ARRL wants the hobby to survive and so do you. So give 'em a break.
     
  5. KE7VE

    KE7VE Banned QRZ Page

    w0dz you said

    &quot;Someone here said ARRL doesn't represent most hams. Let's look at that. There are about 680,000 hams in the U.S. today. It has historically been the case that about 50% are inactive, and I think that holds today too. That leaves 340,000 active hams. Many of those are Techs who got their licenses to operate 2M FM. Most of hamdom's fights don't concern them. They don't plan to ever have HF antennas. They don't participate in clubs or public service or experimentation. They are basically freeloaders. I think that's about half of the active Techs, or about 80,000. They don't typically need ARRL for anything. If ham radio died, they'd sell their rigs and they wouldn't care. So, we're down to about 260,000 active hams who care about ham radio. Right now, there are 166,000 ARRL members. That's 63%.

    So I think it is unfair to say ARRL does not represent ham radio. They represent a majority of active hams. Many of those members disagree with them on occasion. But most people feel we're better off with them than without them.&quot;

    Just a question....if you made this statement in defense of your thesis....do you think you would get your degree?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]?[​IMG]

    Give me a break, you have a BSEE, an idiot Social scientist would blow you out of the water on this one.

    Or are you so blinded by emotion you don't see it?

    For your professional reputation I would suggest you state that you got carried away and that the &quot;facts&quot; you presented really don't yield the conclusions you stated, in any kind of scientific methodology.

    Or perhaps I don't know what BSEE's are like and this is standard for them.

    73 Marty K7RKR a Petroleum Geologist, definitely NOT an engineer
     
  6. W0BKR

    W0BKR Guest

    Heck, why no delete the AM mode...afterall, there is a minority of folks that want to do the same with CW..... [​IMG]


    As to ARRL bashing, I think that being narrow minded makes one think that anything one might state that opposes the ARRL stance is a bash. Frankly, I agree with some of the posts I have seen in the past, the ARRL doesn't ALWAYS reflect the hamdom population's position on issues. Then again, when you vote it isn't the popular vote that gets someone elected either.

    Point? Well, I think those who have opposing views to the ARRL should have a voice and should be heard, as compared to acting like sheep and following the shepard wherever he leads you (or should I say Pied Piper).

    IN any case, &quot;anti ARRL tirrades&quot;. Hmmm.. Seems if you have a differing opinion, it sure isn't welcome.

    Kinda like having a product review from actual users and then slamming them for telling you the equipment item is a piece of junk just because you happen to like it.

    Get real folks and be open minded. Hear what people are saying. Don't hear what you think they are saying.


    Remember: &quot;Wherever you go...............there you are!&quot;
     
  7. W0TDH

    W0TDH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Another e mail that I have been requested to Post....Pretty good stuff;

    The source for this controversy has been &quot;Minute 64&quot; of the July ARRL Board of
    Directors Meeting.

    Please see the following link for an update, which contains important details
    that were not included in communications with various League officials who
    have a hand in the proceeding.

    http://www.amwindow.org/wwwboard/messages/8295.html

    I would appreciate your posting this update in the interest of clarity and
    fairness.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    &lt;eom&gt;

    I have nothing against the ARRL. It has helped out many Hams es does a lot of good. However, it does need a bit of guidence from the floor at times. This piece of &quot;Legislation&quot; (as it were ), minute 64, is not good. The ARRL needs to clarify/change or throw it out where it counts.....in a Board Meeting where it was created ! Simply because it has caused so much controvesy, instead of repeatedly defending it. I am sure there are electronic means with which to have a Board Meeting Session. This issue indeed needs to be put to rest. It is causing too much strife among the Rank es File. Our President would surely agree to that.....
    So, how about it Mr. President, Directors es Officers....lets get rid of this issue now, so we can get back Hamming [​IMG] Toss minute 64 out es lets ALL discuss it in the future a little more.

    Tom - K0PJG
    Life Member A.R.R.L.
     
  8. WD8BIL

    WD8BIL Ham Member QRZ Page

    1)The motion listed in line 64 says nothing about digital modes. Words mean something Mr. ARRL President. The motion was to construct subbands by bandwidth instead of modes. No matter what you SAY you intentions were the motion ,as passed, would effect all subands and all modes.

    2) The AM community never insisted that CW be banned. It is the position of most AM ops that the CW SUBBANDS , along with all subbands, be eliminated. De-regulate amateur radio in the States. We're virtually the only country still using mandated subbands.

    3)&quot;Ancient Modulation&quot; !!!!!!
    I assume you use PDM modulation in your SSB store bought rig !!!!

    Bud Chiller
    Lorain,OH
     
  9. KD7KOY

    KD7KOY Ham Member QRZ Page

    &quot;Whoaaaa Nelly! stop horse...!!!*whinny*&quot;
    [​IMG]
    The proposal was for digital modes, not AM. The &quot;minute&quot; was taken out of context. Ok, the wording was messed up. But it was a &quot;minute&quot; not law. No one is going to make us trash our Heathkits or Vikings.
    Let's not fry our 6146's seeing something thats not there.
    (Making list of heart stopping, blood pressure rising, message board subjects guranteed to incite a riot on QRZ.)
    1. CB
    2. Hollingsworth
    3. CB
    4. ARRL
    5. CB
    6. CW
    7. CB
    8. Bandwidth proposals

    [​IMG]
     
  10. WD8BIL

    WD8BIL Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The proposal was for digital modes, not AM.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    It was [​IMG]?? Where does it say that?[​IMG] Here it is again. Quote the place where it says digital modes.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Bud WD8BIL
    Lorain,OH
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: chuckmartin