The Email Robots are coming to the phone bands!

No, that is Johnny Sack in the photo.

Tony Soprano will wack his ass in Season 6.

So don't worry.

73 - Bob

 

Yes, they have. So too, have Charlie and Skip.

The ARRL once again chosen to ignore the vast majority of comments and request a withdrawal of the Petition.

At this point, it is crystal clear that the ARRL elite think they know what is best for the service, irrespective of what the majority of its membership and the rest of the amateur community want.

Actually, it was rather funny to see Imlay's dance around Pactor III as an issue, by saying that Winlink is mode-independent. Nice try.

 

Anyone wonder why the ARRL membership is down 2 percent this past year, and going down even more after this debacle?

The ARRL comments in reply to RM 11306 nothing short of unmitigated "We know what's best" pap.

 

KA1ZGC, Tom Rounds, really blasted the ARRL's Reply Comments.  And, rightly so.

Here's the URL, but it doesn't seem to work. You can find it easily at ECFS by searching under RM-11306 for anything filed since February 21.

http://gullfoss2fcc.gov/prod....8329488


Then, there's the famous Dr./Dr. Ed.  AE4TM.  I didn't copy his URL, but suffice it to say, it was a good treatise on why Pactor Robots should continue to be confined to a small piece of spectrum.  To protect their supposedly vulnerable, weak signal connections.  And a tutorial/derivation on why and how HF signal propagation is different than VHF.

Don't think that was his intention, but it sure reinforced keeping the boogers confined. Not just for the interference they are capable of producing, but for the interference to any of their own weak, unreadable-by-analog-means signals.

 

There are numerous, well thought out and written reply comments to the reply comments of ARRL and Winlinkers. The FCC is , andgoing to have a very hard time siding with the proponents on this one.

Oh, and for more ARRL hubris and failure of W1AW to follow the ARRL Considerate Operator's HF Frequency Guide, look where they are moving the 160M CW bulletins and practice to. 1807.5 KHz, right in the digital window smack on top of the PSK frequency. Sheesh!!

Mike WA3KYY

 

I hope that is not an exsample to how some americans that find them more important then others deal with volentairy bandplans.

(I remember something about 160 meters being the only band with no fcc envorced bandplan in the usa)

 

I looked over the reply comments to RM-11306 as well as the recent comments on the ARRL website.

The ARRL just posted a news note on their website regarding their take on the "900" comments that were
filed with the FCC.

The ARRL continues to think that their proposal (which became RM-11306) was thoroughly vetted. They did publish some editorials about it and they also sought input at "bandwidth@arrl.org". However, they really only made cosmetic changes and didn't respond -- and still
have not responded -- to the two basic problems
with RM-11306.

1. They have not owned up to the fact that any proposal affecting carving up the bands into various subbands must be the result of collaborative input from all aspects of ham radio -- ragchewers, contestors, DX guys, public service guys, Winlink guys, AM, SSB, CW, RTTY, PSK31, etc. They have still not even agreed in principle to this.
They still think that the whole justification of RM-11306 is to assist digital modes to have room to flourish (while not doing anything too destructive to everything else in ham radio). Implicit in their thinking is that the growth of digital modes is essential to the continuation of ham radio.

2. They admit that a bandplan is necessary but they did not -- and still have not -- put a bandplan on the table for consideration by the ham community.

I continue to support the 90% of all the stuff the ARRL is doing on many fronts. However, they obviously did not take their membership into consideration when coming out with this proposal. Even now -- in view of the 900 comments -- they are still intransigent. They have not made any gestures to remove the objectionable stuff.

I think many who objected would probably come on board with only "relatively minor" tweaks involving keeping robots separate from other operations. The crux of the argument is not "digital" vs "analog" or "regulation by bandwidth" vs "regulation by mode". It is keeping robots separate.

Hopefully, the FCC will either deny the ARRL petition outright or at least do something to separate robots from other operations.

In any case, the ARRL should go to work now on the bandplan. Hopefully, the board of directors will learn from past mistakes and actually draw up a draft bandplan BASED UPON PARTICIPATION FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS. No more back room comittees with a narrow agenda recommending changes for the "good" of all of ham radio. When the draft bandplan is being drawn up there better be key guys in the room from ALL the various ham radio consitituencies -- not just digital guys and not just Winlink guys.

How can an organization continue to remain viable when it ignores the input from a majority of its members? [While giving the impression that it is "listening" to them].

73 Roger K5RKS

 

Unfortunately, this is but one MORE example of a clique in control of an organization that is not taking what the majority of its dues-paying membership wants seriously.
The first one I can recall was Incentive Licensing fiasco back in the '60s.  I left the ARRL and didn't come back for a long time because of that one.  I will remain a member as I felt this is the best way to effect change.

Perhaps QRZ.COM and EHAM should be used as a means to gather those members together who want the clique removed and replaced.  To discuss how to go about same.

Some have already suggested legal action.  That's possible.  A class action lawsuit to acquire control of the ARRL from the clique on behalf of the majority would be quite interesting.

Lee
W6EM

 

Roger,

The ARRL can no longer ethically participate in the bandplanning process!

Because ARRL has adopted Winlink for NTS and AREScomm, they now have a conflict of interest in producing any  bandplan from now on, and if you pick apart the RM-11306 bandplan very carefully, you will see it is just riddled with bias toward Winlink, which now means bias to ARRL activities for NTS and AREScomm. This bias extends to the choices from the bandwidth segment boundaries (favoring current Winlink stations) to their rewrite of 97.221 (opening ALL HF frequencies to "semi-automatic" operations which ONLY Winlink and ARRL use), to totally ignoring the IARU Region 1 bandplan restrictions on digimode activity.

The ARRL is attempting to use REGULATIONS to control where everyone else can operate in order to make more room for Winlink and ARRL activities!

K4CJX keeps harping on the fact that there are "only" 24 Winlink PMBO stations, but there are 25 more non-domestic ones, many of which can be easily copied over here and easily interfere with QSO's over here, and another 25 or so Emcomm PMBO stations what used to be listed on the Winlink website, but somehow are now left off the list - probably to make the threat look smaller. In addition, ONE county alone in Tennessee (I think it is), has 19 Winlink-equipped Emcomm stations already active. There may even be more.

In other words, you can expect Winlink Pactor-III stations in your own backyard if ARRL gets their way and can use "semi-automatic" operations over ALL the HF frequencies. Just why are they fighting so hard for access everywhere? The obvious reason is that they intend to go everywhere!

Based on firm legal principles, the ARRL should voluntarily recuse themselves from all bandplanning and if they do not, the rest of us should insist that their bandplans be ignored. The problem with ARRL "voluntary" bandplans is even if they appear satisfactory at the outset, because they argue for bandplans instead of "rigid" rules, their bandplans can be easily changed. Can you guess in what direction they would be changed in the future!

ARRL has already shown their hand, and if the rest of us are smart, we will never give them a chance again to trick us with false promises, secrecy, and "trust us" enticements.

I don't know just where that leaves us , except perhaps following an IARU Region 2 bandplan where ARRL has only one vote, but with major restrictions controlled by RULES issued by the FCC "AFTER" the open comment and NPRM process which is exactly opposite to the secretive way the ARRL has behaved recently.

As an avid ARRL supporter for over 50 years, I am greatly saddened by their current behavior...

Their intransigent behavior regarding the comments to RM-11306 suggests that only a complete "house-cleaning" at the top and on the Executive Committee will return the ARRL to an organization representive of the members wishes, and that can be trusted.

73, Skip KH6TY

 

"This bias extends to the choices from the bandwidth segment boundaries (favoring current Winlink stations) to their rewrite of 97.221 (opening ALL HF frequencies to "semi-automatic" operations which ONLY Winlink and ARRL use)"

TRUTH

These "semi-automatic" modes are among those that currently exist on HF, and that have existed on HF for at least 20 years:

AMTOR ARQ (CCIR 476-1)
HF Packet
RTTY BBS

All of those used published frequencies, and at least some of them scan more than one frequency.

TRUTH
The remainder of your post consists of repetition of PROVEN falsehoods and "half truths with a deliberate twist". A prime example is the "one county alone in Tennessee..... has 19 Winlink stations". When I equip myself to go mobile with Winlink (as you have helped convince me to do), I will have a Winlink CAPABLE station. That does NOT mean it will be on HF, and it does NOT mean that it will be a PBMO (PMBO?). It MIGHT mean that it includes the capability to be established as a PBMO if needed, but not necessarily so.

The FACT remains that MOST Winlink EMCOMM activity is on VHF/UHF, (TELPAC or PACLINK) and that the HF is put into play for traffic that has no other means of carriage.

Of course, facts that don't fit your bias and obvious motives mean nothing to you.

TRUTH
And then there is that small, nasty FACT that MANY other types of digital operations and modes would fit within the proposed bandwidth. Winlink is ONE use of an HF modem. It is NOT the only use. It will NOT be the only use.

TRUTH
The SCS is NOT the only HF modem that can run 2400 bps or faster in a single voice channel bandwidth on HF. (It is just the only relatively inexpensive one AT THIS TIME. I hope that will change relatively soon.)

TRUTH
The ARRL leadership is making an honest effort to balance the "change nothings" with the real need to keep ham radio viable into the next century. There will NEVER be 100% agreement with ANY leadership of ANY organization.

TRUTH
That with which you disagree is not necessarily incorrect, and that with which you agree is not necessarily correct.

 

Larry, you honestly sound so much like Rush Limbaugh that you might be related.

In any case, have your hearing checked frequently. Rush lost his. Probably from all that shouting TRUTH

 

TRUTH
The majority of amateur radio operators obviously oppose the ill-conceived and heavily biased ARRL bandwidth proposal (based on the percentages shown by comments to RM-11306).  What else need be said?

The majority will rule, the rest of you can just go pee up a rope.

It's all so very simple when you think about it.

 

TRUTH:

There are well over 7700 people with US licenses using the Winlink 2000 system on HF, who would, if asked, email comments to the FCC supporting RM-11306, not to mention those who are recipients of the system.

However, "mail bombing" the FCC at this point is not the proper process.

Out of all the Amateurs involved with the process, 900, 1000 or 2000 is not a significant number.

I would personally like to see the logic against the proposed rule making stick out of the crowd rather than see it lost in larger numbers.  It only strengthens the process for adoption.



Steve, k4cjx

 

Personally, I thought the logic against the proposal was presented very well by quite a number of individuals.

There's little left to discuss Steve.  You support this thing ... I and many others don't.  We're going to put forth whatever effort is necessary to stop it.  The proposal is biased as written, full of technical flaws, and is grossly unfair to > 95% of all amateurs.  Three valid reasons to "just say no to RM-11306".  And many did just that. Don't look up when you use that rope!

 

Wow, that's quite a few. I thought I heard someone mention something like fewer than 20 here, and 25 semi-automatic bots in Europe. Well, how much effort does it take to make all 7700 of those WL2K set ups PMBO robots? Click of a mouse?

That's quite a lot of QRM if they were to try to find each other.

And, at roughly $1000 per box, Peter's doing all right for himself. $7.7Million gross revenue. Not bad.