ARRL speaks on Regulation by Bandwidth

John if you can use the $39 elsewhere, go ahead and take it out of their pockets. The political system in Newington is set up for inertia. It resists movement, and once movement begins, it is hard to stop or steer it.

On this thread there's been a lot of discussion about the volunteers who are 'elected' to represent various regions. The power base is actually held by paid administrative staff, and you'd have to convince a majority of the volunteers to purge them in order to effect real change.

Targets: Sumner, Rinaldo

Out here, to express our concerns and hopes in the regulatory and advocacy arenas, the most effective lever we hold is to provide thoughtful alternatives. The more often the FCC and legislators see groups and individuals offering proposals alongside misguided ideas from the League, the less the Newington group will be seen as "representative."

Thus we have a way to deny them the power they think they still hold.

After a while of getting spanked, trumped and shunted aside, the pain may pressure them toward being more receptive to the concerns of their constituents.

What's that line about if the leaders won't lead, then the followers become leaders? Something like that. We don't need a "new" group to suceed the League. All we need to do is pressure the existing ARRL toward reform.

Submitted for consideration.
Paul/VJB

 

It was in the wake of Incentive Licensing becoming the law of the land that ARRL reportedly lost a fair amount of members. I was one of them.

As a Novice in 1964/65 I was proud to be part of the ARRL. It was only $5 to join back then. Of course I really did not know anything about the ARRL except that it published all of the material that I used to becaome a ham in the first place and I got QST every month.

As I became aware and started to read the articles and letters to the editor concerning IL I began to sense that the ARRL might be more about internal agendas and bowing to certain groups than servicing the membership as a whole. I came to the conclusion that you had to be someone of substance and influence to be heard up in Newington.

When IL happened I left the ARRL as did many others. Interesting things started to happen. The first thing was that the ARRL somehow influenced the FCC to not implement phase 2 of IL which would have cut back on more priviliges for Advanced, General, abd Technician licensees. The next thing was that the ARRL in the 70s started to push for expansion of privileges for Advanced and Generals who had lost so much. Then we got the two year Novice license followed by Novice enhancement and the renewable Novice license.

IMHO this happened because the ARRL got hit in the pocketbook when large numbers of hams got disallusioned with them.

As far as RM-11306 is concerned I am taking a wait and see approach. If the FCC decides to endorse it I will wait and see how it affects my overall operating experience and that will determine whether or not I stay a member. If it works out, fine.

The problem with the ARRL losing membership is that the ARRL will eventually need to find ways to increase revenue from their existing membership base. This is exactly why the Diamond Club was introduced. We will most likely see increases in dues because of the loss. However, this might work in the short term but is a poor long term strategy.

On another subject, did anyone see the ICOM 4 page ad in the new issue of QST? It attempts to address the perception that ham radio is on its death bed. This is remarkable for a mainstream supplier to put into print, especially in QST.

73
George
K3UD

 

Paul,

I am one of those who think the whole thing would very quickly degenerate into a range war. We see some of this on 75 meters at night and we see it during contests. Nets, QRPers, AMers, RTTY, SlowScan and DXers are all presently protective of "their" unofficial frequency hang outs. 160 during a contest is a circus.

On the other hand there are some built in restrictions on where you can and can not go. This has to do with your class of license.

Perhaps I am a bit pessimistic about human nature but this kind of thing did not work when the country was being settled and land grabs were common with the very wealthy and powerful always winning out. It did not work between the farmers and the cattlemen in the west until land use initiatives were instituted and finally enforced. I don't think we have changed that much to expect that everyone will play fair and be nice to everyone else.

Free for alls usually cause stampedes like what happened in the retail stores right after Thanksgiving this past year. I don't think we would be able to function as a society if we had no regulations that limit certain types of behavior. Even the the counter culture utopias of the mid 60s through the late 80s has some rules aimed at the common good. Most of them are gone now as they were failures althought there are still a few around. The human competitive spirit took care of the rest of them.

73
George
K3UD

 

I remember those days. I was a novice in 1967.

Yep. But $5 was a *lot* of money 40 years ago!

The impression I got was similar. But it was not unexpected - why not listen most to those with the most experience and accomplishments?

Yep. Part of Phase 2 was never implemented, part was.

Yep. What is so often forgotten is that there came a point where Advanceds had gotten back almost everything they lost.

Not exactly.

The two-year Novice was part of IL from the beginning - I got one of the first, in October 1967.

"Novice enhancement" and HF for Techs was done in part to populate 10 meters as a way of repelling freebanders, and in part to encourage upgrading.

The renewable Novice was pushed because it was thought that too many Novices were being lost when their one-time licenses ran out.

Yet ARRL membership did not drop appreciably in those times.

Note also what happened to the total number of US hams.

In the mid-1960s, the number of US hams stabilized at around 250,000, after growing steadily from the end of WW2 to about 1963-64. The numbers stalled there for a half decade or so.

After IL was firmly established (early 1970s), the numbers began to grow again - even though the requirements had been raised!

From what I read of that era, opinions on IL were so evenly divided for-against that there was no clear mandate either way. But FCC wanted IL in a big way, so it happened.

And it wasn't just ARRL pushing IL, either. Other groups sent in proposals and ideas, and the end result was complex pile of subbands, rules, etc.

btw, the original 1963 ARRL proposal was dead-simple: Just go back to the way things were before 1953. Back then, operating 'phone on the ham bands between 2.5 and 25 MHz required an Advanced or Extra.

--

The basic concept of "regulation by bandwidth" is pretty sound *IF* it really is "regulation by bandwidth". Meaning that on Subband A you can use modes up to a certain bandwidth, on Subband B you can use modes up to a certain (wider) bandwidth, etc. - regardless of content, baud/symbol rate, etc.

The big problem I have is that it dumps the rules about automatic and semiautomatic operation. And the widest bandwidth allowed on most HF is 3.5 kHz, yet it makes an exception for AM voice. Why is 9 kHz wide AM voice OK, but not 4.5 kHz wide data or SSB?

As for changing the ARRL, that's simple:

1) Be a member
2) Get others who agree with you to be members
3) Run for ARRL office
4) Change things

Simple but not easy, because all but 1) require serious investments of time and effort.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

This is an excellent example of creating a solution to a problem which does not exist to perpetuate an orgaization which is clearly out of touch with the mainstream. The condesending remarks in the response letter coupled with the blatant misrepresentations of how the Amateur Community was informed can only be responded to through a court injunction.

It is time for everyone to join the league, force a vote, throw these insolents out of of office and then "vote in" reasonable realistic Amateurs who represent the mainstream.

 

Agreed!

My biggest beef with the ARRL proposal is that it doesn’t go far enough.  

In their quest to try and please everyone, they’re still advocating a measure of “regulating by mode”.  And, once you do that, I believe you are right back to regulating by mode.  

On the other hand, the League DID hit the nail squarely on the head when they noted that those vehemently opposing such changes are…“comfortable with the status quo, because the current regulations are not encouraging toward digital modes and, therefore, the current regulatory scheme, they feel, 'protects' them."

It’s important to remember that the ITU Amateur Service regulations neither afford (nor do they imply) any such “protection” to or from anyone operating on our Amateur Bands.  However, by over-regulating the HF bands by both emission mode and license class, the FCC has been trying to do precisely that for decades.  

But, it would now appear that the folks in Washington have finally realized that, besides being legally discriminatory to persons with disabilities, such over-regulation of the licensing and HF operation in the Amateur Service has also had the cumulative effect of stifling a lot of the creative, “technical investigation” efforts of US Hams as well.  

So we shouldn't be at all surprised when we now learn that it's precisely these long-overdue changes to bring the technical investigation part of our mandate back into balance with the operational side of things that has all the “comfortable” Luddites in a tizzy.  

That’s because, not only are they about to lose the implied “protections” that the FCC’s over-regulated, mode-based, sub-band schemes have afforded them over the years, but (horror of horrors!) they are ALSO about to have the regulatory underpinnings for all their license-class-based “badges of honor” and “I’m better than you” ego trips pulled out from underneath them as well.  

So, rest assured, we're going to be witness to even MORE Luddite trauma when the FCC finally gets rid of the REST of their inane "Incentive Licensing" nonsense and adopts a far more simplified (and far less achievement-based) licensing structure similar to what Canada and others have been using for decades.  

I firmly believe the FCC is now proceeding apace to get out the license-class-and-mode-based, HF sub-band regulation business altogether.  The League's "regulation by bandwidth" proposal is simply the ARRL's response to the FCC's "handwriting on the wall" on the subject.

And, because the League is once again in a reaction mode here (just as they were with BPL) all the Luddite threats and chest beating over recalling ARRL directors and writing protests to the FCC will have absolutely ZERO effect on the eventual outcome.

For, when it's finally in place, I predict the FCC’s plan is going to completely open up the HF Bands to the full ITU recommended bandwidths across the board, while turning the entire issue of “who operates where and with what” over to US-licensed Hams to sort out for themselves.

So, stay tuned, folks...because the FCC is just now getting started executing their plan to drag the Amateur Service in the United States kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, there's much more of the "Luddite Silliness Show" yet to come!


73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

 

With all due respect, CTT's deliberations had an even thicker cone of silence around them than ARRL's.

The fact is that the CTT proposal was even less popular than the ARRL proposal - and opposed for more reasons.

Even though the feedback from hams here and elsewhere was overwhelmingly negative, CTT filed a proposal anyway.

Which sounds much like what we hear from the BoD.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it seems as resistant to change as the ARRL's is accused of being.

Which means subbands-by-mode.

What would those 'tight operating standards' be?
How could they be well-enforced if a non-equipped station can't even ID the interference source?

It seems to me that both ARRL and CTT made the same basic mistake: Both groups put together proposals that would be a radical change to the existing rules, and submitted them to FCC, without getting widespread support in the amateur community. Now they just look clueless to FCC.

In the case of the ARRL proposal, the focal point of opposition is letting robots loose all over the bands.

In the case of the CTT proposal, the focal point of opposition is complete rejection of the basic concept.

Why bother to submit proposals that get overwhelmingly negative comments?

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Because it makes for good discussion.

 

What models of disaster relief should be proposed?

Look at it from the 'served agency' point of view. What do they want from hams?

Suppose there's a disaster and a high school is converted into an aid shelter. They have power (backup generator) water and some supplies. Plus several hundred to several thousand people displaced by the disaster.

And no commercial communications to the outside world due to loss of infrastructure.

Tailor-made scenario for hams to step in, right?

The folks running the shelter quickly produce the following:

1) A list of desperately-needed supplies and personnel(medical stuff, mostly)

2) A list of soon-to-be-needed supplies (water/food/fuel/blankets/clothing etc. - but specific to that shelter)

3) A list of people who have died.

4) A list of critically-ill and injured who need special care immediately and/or airlift out of the shelter

5) A list of those in the shelter who are second-priority to be moved out when possible

6) A list of everyone in the shelter, with health-and-welfare contact info (so loved ones know they're OK)

All of the above are in the form of computer files. Through Herculean efforts and organization by the folks running the shelter, all that info has been gathered in a short time and put in electronic format.

Most of the lists need to go to several recipients. Some are more urgent than others, and some contain more sensitive info than others.

How should ham radio best respond? What mode(s) and technologies are available to us that will get those lists to their recipients as fast and accurately as possible, without relying on commercial infrastructure in the disaster area?

I'm not saying Winlink or Pactor 3 is the only answer, or that ARRL's approach is the best one or even a good one.

I'm just asking what the needs are, and how best to serve them.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

I'll take it that single sentence is a reply to my question about 'why send unpopular proposals to FCC?'

My reply is that it doesn't generate good discussion at all. Instead, it polarizes folks and wastes FCC resources.

We hams often say we are 'communicators' and other such warm fuzzy terms. We say there's a need for less intrusive regulation, more self-determination, etc.

If all that is true, then we hams should be really good at putting together proposals that are clear, cohesive, practical, and most of all widely supported by the amateur radio community. IOW, build consensus and trust among the various different ARS interests, rather than trying to force the views of the few on the entire group.

With such proposals, all FCC would have to do is rubber-stamp them into the regulations.

That sort of consensus-building isn't easy, simple or fast. But it's certainly more productive than filing proposals with FCC that are then overwhelmingly rejected by the vast majority of commenters.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Jim,

I gave you the courtesy just now of looking at your Comment filed with the FCC against the League's Petition RM-11306. I did this to see if I could counter an impression I keep getting that you're a belligerent person who feels misunderstood. Actually, it seems to boil down to the way you handle anything that does not line up with YOUR point of view.

For example, you completely dismiss the discussions about how the amount of space today reserved for narrow bandwidth modes on HF does not match the number of people interested in populating these zones. It is a worthwhile goal to scale the size of those reserved spots to the observed level of activity. Empty frequencies are not efficient, and should be free for all to use. I note that you filed such consideration in your Comments against RM-11305.

Perhaps most important to the concept of building concensus is the value of discussions that consider other points of view. I find a very unpleasant tone in your postings here, and it would make anyone reluctant to be persuaded by the value of any valid points you could make.

You would do well to keep that in mind with anyone else you hope to convince in the future.

Paul/VJB

 

Perhaps. How far do you have to go to get to intact infrastructure? 5 miles, 20 miles, 50 miles, 100 miles?

This will have a major bearing on how things should be handled.

 

The discussion going on in this thread about what sort of Amateur service should be provided to EMCOMM is the one that should have taken place, before putting RM 11305/6 into the hopper. Lots of smart people, lots of good ideas, but it is an open discussion, not the views of some group of "insiders" that everyone is supposed to bow down to.

I personally don't know the answers to these questions, and as far as I can see, the moves by CTT and the ARRL BOD are at best knee jerk reactions to providing meaningful EMCOMM services via Amateur radio.

Maybe WinLink is the answer, but over Packet on 6 meter. Maybe something else, but without REQUIREMENTS, it's all noise in my book.

Right now, the WinLink folks are getting their R&D funding/drive (well not really) from serving the sailing crowd, which is a good thing. The local and distributed Packet BBS systems that I played with mid 80's are all but gone, with lots of modems in the junk heap or in the closet.

The point of my argument is not the technology underlying the service, but the service itself based on providing a real and useful aid to disaster relief operations.

 

Besides Lee, the day the power company shuts off the power in Newington for not being able to pay the bill and they board up the windows, Sumner will be at his desk working.

 

what ARRL do now? and whats next ?