Regulation by Bandwidth (Again)

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by WC5CW, Jun 20, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: l-BCInc
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
  1. WC5CW

    WC5CW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Fellow Forum Members...

    As the ARRL's Board of Directors July Meeting draws near, a statement summarizing the ARRL's position and history with regard to the formation, submission and withdrawal of RM-11306 has been published in the July 2007 QST.

    My purpose here is not to re-hash the issues surrounding Petition RM-11306 nor to engage in a redundancy of arguments pro or con (arguments amply stated here within the QRZ.COM forums and elsewhere) and I won't go into the details of automatically controlled digital stations and interference (again, details amply demonstrated and elaborated on here within the QRZ.COM forums and elsewhere) except to note the following as perhaps an ARRL "blueprint" of conviction and/or convenience for discussion and adoption of a new "band plan by bandwidth" proposal as it may unfold within and subsequent to the upcoming Board of Directors meeting.

    Specifically, comments made by David Sumner, K1ZZ, in which he discredits the notion held by some that the ARRL was attempting to promote or legitimize particular data modes, such as Winlink (in RM-11306).

    " 'The petition, in fact, had nothing specifically to do with Winlink or any other particular data mode. It was, rather, a means of facilitating data experimentation, which is somewhat stifled under the current rules' that were written almost exclusively for analog modes"*

    "A major distraction in the public debate related to automatically controlled data stations, and assertions that adopting the League's petition would permit such facilities to run roughshod over CW and other traditional modes. Sumner says automatic control is not even an essential component of the League's regulation-by-bandwidth proposals"*

    To repeat, "Sumner says automatic control is not even an essential component of the League's regulation-by-bandwidth proposals."

    In the wake of discovery, discussion and awareness by a growing number of concerned amateur operators regarding the impact of automatically controlled digital stations, it seems to me, that SPECIFICALLY DEFINED REGULATION OF AUTOMATIC CONTROLLED DIGITAL STATIONS SHOULD BE AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF ANY BAND PLAN BY BANDWIDTH REGULATION PROPOSAL as demonstrated in the hundreds of comments posted in the wake of the ARRL's filing of RM-11306 and the volumes of discussions before and after the petition's withdrawal by the ARRL.

    Assurances as promised by Joel Harrison, ARRL President, to offer a "far better explanation" of the consequences of regulation by bandwidth before the League files any new petition aside, now is the time to make known to your ARRL Division Director your views on the issues of Band Plan by Bandwidth regulation and the need for well-defined regulation of automatically controlled digital stations, if indeed, they must exist within our precious allocations.

    * "ARRL Withdraws "Regulation By Bandwidth" Petition, Plans to Refile", QST, July 2007, p65.

    FWIW

    Bruce
    WC5CW
     
  2. K5JAT

    K5JAT Ham Member QRZ Page

    I agree with your remarks. Automatic stations must be regulated and confined or the "legal" QRM will be everywhere on the bands. It begs the question: What's their real motivation for pushing this agenda? All we have is speculation that Gov dollars are the driving force, but I think it goes beyond even that. I'm just not sure how far it goes.

    73, Jay KE5NRH
     
  3. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Then they should leave it out, or file it as a separate petition.
     
  4. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    The motivation that I have read in black and white is that the ARRL sees an inevitable switch from analog to digital by most all of amateur radio in the not too distant future, and that on-air life in that future will be a lot easier if the bands are allocated by bandwidth.

    Now I don't know how true that is as far as being the main motivator, but I do find it hard to believe that the ARRL would be pursuing changes to all of amateur radio just for some (ultimately) trivial financial benefits to that organization from security dollars. These guys are not getting rich on the organization's finances, and I believe that type of speculation is way off-base if not slanderous.

    Mike
     
  5. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Now I'm confused.

    If a new petition does not say anything about automatic control, then doesn't that mean that the existing rules requiring automatic control to operate in specific frequencies stay in effect? Isn't that a good thing?
     
  6. W3WN

    W3WN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    This isn't slander.

    Slander is spoken.

    This is libel.
     
  7. W3WN

    W3WN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Hmmm.

    I fail to see the connection.

    The ultimate purpose of the petition is to drop sub-bands by mode to permit future flexibility of useage of the bands.

    How does that translate to a need for sub-bands specifically for "automatic" and "semi-automatic" stations? How is that need (and there is a need for this, I grant you) a factor of regulation-by-bandwith?

    There is a very simple solution to this. If and when the petition is refiled, simply propose that stations operating in automatic or semi-automatic mode (or however you want to legally define the store-and-forward subclass) are not subject to the ability to move around the band(s) but are limited to a specific sub-band. Similar to the the same limitations that a repeater has, which is also a type of automated station. I leave the exact phrasing of said proposal to those who would file said petition.

    That is the goal here, isn't it? It's not like we're all Luddites or anything, right?
     
  8. K3UD

    K3UD Guest

    I always thought that the main sticking point with RM-11306 was the fear (and I think a well founded fear) that that automatic and so called semi automatic operation of any mode would run roughshod over all of our bands and create debilitating and mostly unidentifiable interference for the main users of the band. Many thought that these operations should be warehoused in very specific portions of each band.

    If this had been part of the petition in the first place there would have been a lot less opposition to it.

    73
    George
    K3UD
     
  9. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    You're absolutely right, I stand corrected!

    Mike
     
  10. KY5U

    KY5U Subscriber QRZ Page

    That's right, George.

    1. Automatic stations
    2. Removal of encryption language
    3. No bandplan
    4. AM ESSB issues (modes >3kHz)
    5. Reduction of CW spectrum by reducing the 500hz area in comparison to today's CW bands.

    #3 is important as well. Before I would support a bandwidth regulation change, I would insist to see the bandplan overlay FIRST. Without a bandplan overlay to address mode segregation (at least for the first 5-10 years), you'd end up with digital stations on 7.010 etc. This would be the beginning of WWIII on the bands.

    I believe the key is a bandwidth based plan that maintains a mode status quo until we get used to working better with each other.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page