ARRL speaks on Regulation by Bandwidth

No more money for the ARRL. I'm sorry but I really did enjoy reading QST for the price of membership. Hey, that's the only thing I liked about my membership was getting a deal on the QST... Later for you ARRL !!!

 

There are still some hams who build, experiment, and generally fool around with technology.

That would be quite a challenge, of course - just as those hams who first put SSB, RTTY, PSK31, SSTV, APRS, packet, and many other modes on the air faced a challenge.

When those modes were new, most hams wouldn't dream of tearing into their rigs to use the new modes until some pioneers figured out how to do it reliably and easily.

Is that really such a big problem? We *are* hams, after all, and one of the reasons for the ARS is so we can build radios ourselves without having to go through an approval or certification process on each design.

Don't a lot of modern rigs permit a form of AM (carrier and one sideband)? Shouldn't be too hard to modify them....

Oh wait - such a mode could be easily implemented using an SDR-type rig, couldn't it? Implementation would be a matter of writing the software for it.

Is it so easy to get an experimental license? And why should that step be required for a well-defined mode, anyway? SSB is well-defined, and so is PSK31. Both modes are legal without a special license, so why should it be a big legal deal to combine them?

My point is not about any specific mode, but about the fact that current rules ban certain possible modes based on their content rather than bandwidth. US hams can't use/develop/fool around with a combined data/analog voice mode on the HF bands today, regardless of how good or bad it is, or how much bandwidth it takes up, or how easy/difficult it is to implement.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Jim,

I've looked at getting an STA. It doesn't look that difficult as a process. Actually getting one approved may be a different matter but I've read nothing to indicate that. I don't consider filing an application with the FCC any big legal deal at all.

Well, the ARRL plan would be just as restrictive in that it would ban anything other than narrow band signals on HF - regardless of the usefulness of the mode.

And it would be MUCH harder to get an STA for a mode which would require a total redo of the bandwidth regulations if it became popular compared to simply adding another mode to the regulations today.

Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.

tim ab0wr

 

The first point is “who to blame” do not blame the paid staff. Do blame the Directors. Do blame Haynie. and the new President, “here is the new boss, same as the old boss”. It is clearly the time to flush the board. The paid staff is hired guns and has to do what the board requires. Get a new Board. They will get rid of any paid staff who will not do there bidding. I suspect that it will not be necessary to get rid of many paid staff members.  As a matter of fact, many would be glad to see a Board that represents the members.

When I purchased a Life Membership, my money went to the ARRL Foundation. The Foundation is separate from the ARRL not for profit Corp.  The interest on my payment pays my yearly dues each year. When I die, my original sum is donated to the ARRL. So I’d like to know whom at the ARRL thinks that I am not a paying member.

I have wondered about the Diamond Club. As a life member, I used to be a premium member. Now to retain that status, I have to cough up $10,000 or more?  I have been wondering if Winlink or some Yachters have joined the Diamond Club? So money talks and Life Members walk?  Anybody who has joined the Diamond Club should have their money refunded and that “strip joint” should be closed.

The ARRL has vetted their proposal well. The problem is that they did not listen to those who commented. Instead, comments were met with rebuttal, and the original proposal was submitted with little changes.

I have always been a strong supporter of the ARRL. I have been a Life Member for over 25 years. I strongly believe that if it were not for the ARRL Ham Radio probably would not exist today.  The first time I have ever filed comments opposing an ARRL filing was the recent License Restructuring Proposal and now the Bandwidth Proposal. The ARRL is doing a lot of good. They are staging a valiant fight against BPL. They are taking a strong stand against ignorant antenna ordinances that would preempt operation by many of us. But I am totally disgusted with the recent garbage the ARRL has placed before the FCC.

I do not recommend that anybody quit the ARRL.  Stay in and fight. Vote the Directors that do not represent you out.  This latest round of nonsense makes it clear that the ARRL Board of Directors is in need of serious repair.

Are there any Attorneys in the audience who would donate some time? Perhaps a Class Action suit is in order. Did the League falsely represent their membership? Do you know that how a Director votes on an issue is a secret? That needs to be changed so we know who is not representing us.

What the ARRL needs to be doing is to expand the phone bands instead of turn Amateur Radio into a free ISP for the rich.  And what is with this entry-level license with H.F. phone privileges? Without the code, the Technician and General multiple guess tests with the question pool published are not easy enough?  

Fortunately, I believe that the FCC realizes that the ARRL is out of touch. I think that they will go with the comments. If the ARRL does have a scathing defeat, the current Board is so arrogant that they will still not get it. It will be up to the members to fix the ARRL.  So stay in and flush the board.

Vy 73, Walter A. Breining
N9WB
ARRL Life Member

 

 The classic "cart before the horse."  Develop the mode first at VHF/UHF frequencies.  Or, at very low power, in compliance with Part 15.  Then, ask for that experimental licence, if demonstrating the usual effects of HF propagation are desired.

Not true, if done at Part 15 levels.  Besides, as I said above, develop the mode between two stations in bands where there IS ample spare spectrum for experimentation with wider bandwidth modes.  Then, if you have something worthwhile, that is respectful of sparse spectrum allocations below 28MHz, then, ask for that experimental license.

While I don't disagree with regulation by bandwidth in principle, it should not encourage the on-air use of wider-bandwidth modes, unless significantly more spectrum is made available.  Spectrum is an international resource.  And, like fossil fuels, it should be conserved and shared.

Lee
W6EM

 

Read the ARRL Articles of Association ByLaws. What accountability there is, is only upon individual Directors. Nothing for the chosen Executive Vice President/CEO (and his chosen Chief Operating and Technical Officers, and so on.)

Whose fault is that? There are no written provisions for members to take any other action.

If members are, in fact, the "owners" of the Association/Corporation according to the laws of the State of Connecticut, why shouldn't we be able to pursue other remedies?

If, in fact, the Association (as represented by its BOD) has acted in *bad faith* with respect to the wishes of its "owners", we should be able to correct such behavior as would stockholders of other Connecticut Corporations.

And, not just by the totally ineffective method of writing to our respective Division Directors, who are part of the problem, not the solution. Ah, but, as now permitted, we can just file umteen individual Director recall petitions. Of course to be handled by the same staff that, according to Ron, AI4CB, has been mailing out ballots a little late, these days!!

Time to clean out the entire executive cadre and rewrite the ByLaws of the Association. Perhaps with the assistance of whatever legal means Connecticut allows.

Lee
W6EM

 

How about IARU Region 2 with each member society representing their country getting one vote? That's how it is done in Regions 1 & 3 so why not here? Why do we need a US specific plan that is at odds with the rest of the countries in our own Region as well as with those in other Regions?

73,
Mike WA3KYY

 

A popular mode Ed? How many actual users are there in the US compared to the total US amateur population?

Why does it fall off to unusable at 20 miles? That is mobile VHF/UHF range without the use of a repeater. Who would use HF for that communications range?

Also, what does this mode offer the typical amateur radio operator? When was the last time someone called CQ on PACTOR (of any flavor or even any TOR mode) and received an answer?

The vast majority of all amateur radio contacts are in real time between live operators. Store and forward systems are useful for very specific, limited purposes but will never be more than a small part of routine amateur operations. If it ever did come to that I predict the numbers of licensees could be counted in the low thousands.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

 

I have a lot of respect for the opinions of
AG4YO, W6EM, N9WB, AB0WR and others
on this thread. I find the point that AG4YO
makes about the FCC not really following
the stats of pro/con comments filed
disturbing. I am an ARRL member and I
plan to remain a member as N9WB suggests.
I have found myself filing comments in oppotition
to many of the recent ARRL RM petitions.
I agree with the comments made regarding the
ARRL staff not being to blame. Also agree a lot
of good has been done and is being done by the
ARRL. However I do think the ARRL is out of
control and needs reformed. I am not sure how
it could be done but just a few changes if implemented
could get the ARRL back on track.
1. ALL director votes should be open so we know
how each directors votes
2. ALL RM petitions prior to being filed with the FCC
should require a majority ballot of the members.
3. The by-laws need to be changed to provide the
members better recoarse
I think with so many so unhappy with the ARRL
changes will come. Hopefully sooner rather than
later.
Bill WS4Y

 

KYY:

I agree! The Region 2 bandplan should be drawn up based upon input from all the member societies in Region 2 just like the method used to come up with the Region 1 and Region 3 plans.

My guess is that once the Region 2 bandplan is drawn up that this bandplan would be 99% consistent with the current FCC rules. If so, then petitions to the FCC such as RM-11306 would be unnecessary.

My main problem with RM-11306 is that it opens the floodgate to "robots" without any bandplan on the table.
If we had a new bandplan then it would specify where the "robots" could operate on an exclusive or shared basis. My guess is that a new Region 2 bandplan would not require much -- if any -- change in the current FCC rules. It would not require any draconian stuff such as RM-11306 which unleashes "robots" throughout the phone bands.

In my comments to the FCC, my points were that RM-11306 is (1) ill-advised because it unleashes "robots" all over the phone bands, and (2) premature because it necessarily requires a new Region 2 bandplan which not only is not on the table for consideration but the ARRL has not even taken steps to begin the process of formulating it. [The ARRL has now after the fact begun to at least talk about the bandplan]

The onus to come up with the bandplan should not necessarily be with the ARRL in "normal" times. However, since the ARRL unilaterally came up with RM-11306 which is useless without a bandplan (and by an 8 to 1 ratio is deemed objectionable regardless of a bandplan) then the job of getting the bandplan going rests with the ARRL.

Who knows? Looking back on this exercise after all the smoke clears there might be a good result. (1) The FCC rejects most or all of RM-11305 and RM-11306 including the idea of unleashing "robots" in the phone bands. (2) The ARRL goes ahead with launching the band planning process involving the other Region 2 member societies.

Maybe guys won't have to burn their ARRL membership cards in protest. I am keeping mine in a asbestos sleve for protection.

The ARRL BOD and/or staff has ignored the will of the majority of its members regarding this key regulatory matter. Maybe the bandplanning process with input from other Region 2 member societies will be a catylist to get the ARRL back on track. They may not be able to ignore other Region 2 societies in "formal" bandplanning sessions the way they ignore E-mail comments from their own members.

As we have all stated a million times the problem is not a bunch of hidebound hams being unable or unwilling to change with the times and adopt new technologies. The problem is not regulation by bandwidth vs regulation by mode. The problem is not trying to stifle innovation of any kind of digital mode including "wide digital modes". The situation is that there are many various "stakeholders" in ham radio and the ARRL as OUR national society should be balanced and any FCC action they propose should not grossly advantage one tiny stakeholder at the expense of all others.

73 Roger K5RKS

 

WS4Y:

I totally agree with your suggestions that before the ARRL file any petition to the FCC that it should be put to a vote of its membership.

I think 99% of all the problems with the ARRL is the way the ARRL is "representing" (maybe "misrepresenting") its membership before the FCC.

Most of us are not complaining about the management of DXCC (whether Podunk Island is or is not country) or contests (whether the multiplier for working DX outside your own continent during the RTTY contest is 3 or 4) or QST articles or the technical evaluations of new equipment (such as whether the 3rd order intercept of some wiz bag new transceiver is properly measured compared with other transceivers).

We are not complaing about the work of the outgoing QSL bureau. We are not complaining about the work the ARRL does to help us with tower problems and the crusade against internet service on power lines. We like all that stuff!!

The locus of our whole problem is the FCC filings. As you say, if we as members could vote before the ARRL files anything with the FCC the ARRL governance would be greatly improved.

I wish I had some background in corporate governance but I am a dumb engineer and I really don't know how
to help the ARRL to institute this. If just this one single thing could be done the general outlook between the ARRL and its members would improve 1000%.

I guess a first step is to write letters or E-mails to our new ARRL president and raise the issue of putting future ARRL petitions to the FCC up to a member vote.

73 Roger K5RKS

 

K5RKS is right and speaks for a lot of us about needed change at HQ.

 

The last thing that the Digital Elite want is a bunch of sane, reasonable Amateurs getting together to do a bandplan. The next to last thing they want is representation from all modes of interest on HF.

The ARRL had the opportunity when the Ad Hoc Kangaroo Court was exposed to clean up the activity and make everything above board. When they didn't, they clearly tarnished their facade of fairness. What they should do now is write a letter to the FCC and retract the petition. They should say, "It is now obvious to us that we could have done a better job of building concensus in the Amateur community. Please allow us to represent a more representative petition before year's end."

Get Skip Teller, Steve Waterman, a couple SSB, AM and CW people (who primarily use each mode), and put together a plan that they KNOW will have to be voted on by the Amateur community. Publish a ballot in QST, CQ, and in as many local newsletters as possible. You write your call on the ballot and you vote yea or nea on the plan. One call, one vote. No wives, kids, dead uncles, pet cats. You pay the postage.

I could easily find 50 volunteers to count ballots if nobody else can. Then go back to the FCC with a real concensus plan. Win lose or draw, I'd get behind it.

 

But that's how FCC works. They are required to accept comments, but they are not required to act on what the majority wants.

Agree on both counts. We need to let the BoD know that the good work of ARRL is being overshadowed by a few policies people don't like.

I would say that certain *policies* need reform.

I agree 100%. In fact, the minutes of all BoD meetings belong in QST, with each vote being recorded. And the full results of any surveys that are done published as well.

You can view the minutes on the website, but a website is not the same thing as a magazine every single member gets.

Many of the votes *are* recorded in the minutes. But not all of them. My directors have always let the members know how they voted, and when the vote was not published, tried to get it published.

But that should not be necessary! I can't understand why *any* director would not want his/her voting record known to everyone. That's what representation and responsibility are all about, right?

Agreed! Just include a page in QST. Fill in your member number, yea/nay, toss it in an envelope and send to Newington.

In fact, bundle the whole thing into an annual survey. And publish the results!

Every member gets a ballot for director elections - how hard can a survey be?

Not really. There's already a way to remove a director if enough members (10%) oppose his/her actions. The main change I see needed is the publication of minutes and voting records.

There are two more things that can be done:

- WRITE and let the directors and ARRL president/vice president know what you think. If you're a member, tell them you don't like the rules as they are. If you're not a member, tell them you'll join up if they change certain things, and what those things are.

- If people really want to change the BoD, they have to run for director! In some divisions, the incumbent isn't even being opposed when election time comes. That is interpreted by the incumbents as 'we're doing a great job'!

Even if the opponent loses, the fact that the opposition even exists has an effect.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Thanks!

You may also be interested in my comments on RM-11305. Just search on my last name.

I don't see myself as belligerent, Paul. I am assertive, that's all.

Could you give an example of what you consider belligerent behavior on my part?

Where have I done that?

I simply don't agree that every Hz of every HF band should be open to use by every mode, regardless of bandwidth of the mode. Wide and narrow modes do *NOT* mix well.

HF spectrum is a limited resource. Setting aside bandspace for the use of more spectrum-efficient modes is just good planning, because they make the best use of the limited resource.

The concept is similar to having high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on crowded highways, to offer an incentive to carpool, which is a more efficient use of the limited resource (highway lanes).

Observed and projected level of activity would be better, since things may change in the future.

However, I do not think a 'survey' that consists of observing from a single location over a single 12 hour period during a sunspot minimum should be used as a way to determine what the rules will be for the indefinite future.

And even the fault-ridden CTT survey showed a ratio of 1.75 wide to 1 narrow QSOs. Yet the CTT proposal would give every kHz of every band to the wide modes!

As it is now, all 'empty' frequencies are free for all who hold the required license-for-the-subband to use. Just not with any mode. That's a good thing!

Would you eliminate subbands-by-license-class? That's the only way all empty frequencies would be free for all to use.

If a Technician is qualified to run 1500 W PEP AM on 2 meters, why not on 20 meters? If a General is qualified to run 1500 W of SSB on 3980 kHz, why not on 3780 kHz?

Answer: Because spectrum space is an effective incentive to learn more!

I'm not sure what consideration you're talking about. could you be more specific?

I'm sorry if you find my "tone" unpleasant - that's not my intent.

I do have some experience in building consensus. One key element in doing so is to propose something that everyone can support, even if it's not their personal favorite. RM-11305 and RM-11306 propose several things that I cannot support.

I oppose both RM-11305 and RM-11306 on their merits alone. I have considered all the arguments for them with an open mind, but I find both proposals unacceptable.

RM-11306 could possibly be fixed up to become acceptable by certain changes (reigning in the robots, for one big problem).

But the basic free-for-all concept of RM-11305 is simply not a good idea.

It's not just me or my 'tone', either. The vast majority of commenters on RM-11305 and RM-11306 see the same problems I do.

If anyone needs to re-consider how they can convince others to agree with them, it's CTT and ARRL.

73 de Jim, N2EY