Having control is good, sort of like bandwidth limitations. I only bow to my wife and my two girls.
Pete, cwa On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 20:50:27 -0500 "Mike Sawyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For fear of starting a 'flaming war', I'm going to reserve further > comments > with the exception that I stopped bowing in the direction of > Newington a > long time ago. > Mike(y) > W3SLK > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "peter markavage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 8:39 PM > Subject: Re: [AMRadio] ARRL bandwidth scheme not accepted > > > SLK said - They placed it in all the ham radio venues for comment. > > After they submitted it to the FCC. As far as I can tell, > we(amateurs) > had no input to their proposal prior to submission. Point us to > some > discussion topic prior to submission. > > SLK said - I'll give the CTT guys credit for placing something out > there > that is fair and equitable to all modes > > Extras lose exclusive CW segment; voice, data, and cw signals of > any > bandwidth free to settle anywhere "they" perceive no interference > issues; > no procedure to gather the necessary expertise to define a band plan > and > unfortunately a band plan with no legal teeth; mixing of analog and > data > signals lack any way to identify to each other to prevent > interference; > semi and auto robots can float around the entire band. > Can you picture, say here in the Northeast, several 20KHz data > stations > firing up on 3840, 3860, 3880 on a typical quiet mid-afternoon and > then > decide to hang in there for several hours. I'll assume here a zero > guard > band between each transmitting group. If this scenario was to > happen, > remember no bandwidth limitations, no one in our area could > legality > transmit anywhere 3830 and 3890, again assuming a zero guard band. > With > no legal binding regulatory bandwidth controls, this proposal is > doomed > to disaster. Also, unless they amend their proposal in Section > 97-301 to > correct the errors, General and, I believe, Advance Class lose > frequency > privileges. > > SLK said - they didn't do what the ARRgghhL did by drop-kicking it > right > to the FCC with out any input from members, (or at least the members > I > know). > > Well, I'm not sure where you've been, but the initial ARRL draft > proposal > came out in August 2004. An e-mail address was set up almost > immediately > to funnel all your pro and con comments to them. The draft proposal > was > publicized on QRZ, eHam, AMfone, QST, CQ, WorldRadio, Newsline, > ARRL > Letter, and probably a number of others. Discussions on a number of > forums commenced immediately with tons of information being passed > back > and forth. The draft proposal went through several iterations, > before > being submitted to the FCC. By the way, it was 15 months after the > draft > proposal was made public, that it was submitted to the FCC. If you > didn't > submit comments to them during that 15 month period, what can I > say. > > SLK said - and a new voice will be heard speaking for the ham radio > masses! > > K1MAN already tried that and you know where that went; you need > something > new, fresh, and financial backing to get off the ground > > Pete, cwa > > > > On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:16:11 -0500 "Mike Sawyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > > Pete, > > What's the problem? Is your precious (be)League(d) the only > > voice for > > amateur radio? I'll give the CTT guys credit for placing > something > > out there > > that is fair and equitable to all modes. They placed it in all > the > > ham radio > > venues for comment. I saw both praise and criticism given to > them. > > At least > > they didn't do what the ARRgghhL did by drop-kicking it right to > the > > FCC > > with out any input from members, (or at least the members I > know). > > The time > > is coming very rapidly that hams will recognize the fact that the > > ARRgghhL > > has outlived its usefulness and a new voice will be heard > speaking > > for the > > ham radio masses! > > Mike(y) > > W3SLK > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "peter markavage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:23 PM > > Subject: [AMRadio] ARRL bandwidth scheme not accepted > > > > > > Geoff: > > I think you're missing the point here. > > > > VJB said: "Thanks for your thoughts. I'm totally with you on the > > need for > > Newington to poll its constituents BEFORE acting on a major > policy > > or > > regulatory proposal like this one. > > <cut> > > Too bad that system has been discredited by the laundry list of > bad > > moves > > that could have been avoided by the leadership in Newington, had > > they > > only alllowed popular opinion and asked some people for guidance > on > > what > > they should do." > > > > > > Seven guys (CTT group) got together for some back-room activity > and > > created a proposal, which was submitted to the FCC prior to the > > ARRL > > submission, that has far greater implications on our amateur > radio > > service. Basically, their proposal removes any bandwidth > limitations > > on > > any transmitted mode in the HF bands. Further, it also implies, > that > > you > > can operate any mode, any bandwidth, anywhere your license > allows, > > as > > long as you perceive you are not causing interference to any > other > > station. Digital and analog modes are to co-exist by some > undefined > > band > > plan and gentleman's agreement. I have yet to see any recommended > > or > > proposed band plan from this group or who would even develop this > > plan. > > > > To my original point: Since VJB stated "...need for Newington to > > poll its > > constituents BEFORE acting on a major policy or regulatory > proposal > > like > > this one"; did the CTT group, which VJB is listed as a member, > poll > > the > > amateur member users of these many digital and analog modes (some > > of > > which are still experimental in nature) or ask for guidance from > > them, > > prior to them submitting their proposal. Obviously, any amateur > can > > submit a proposal to the FCC without asking anyone for input, but > > with > > this proposal having so many far reaching consequences for > amateurs > > in > > the future, how much data did they collect, digest, and use > prior > > to > > submitting their proposal. To their defense, they did include a > > survey > > called "An Analysis of Band Occupancy By Mode" on a "typical" day > at > > a > > specific U. S. location in their proposal. I have not seen or > heard > > of > > any other collected data beyond this simple survey. > > > > The ARRL solicited comments for over a year before it decided to > > move > > forward with it's proposal. > > > > >From those that may also want to review the CTT proposal, go > here: > > http://amfone.com/proposal1.htm > > > > Pete, wa2cwa > > > > > > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:19:51 -0600 W5OMR/Geoff > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > writes: > > > > > > >How many amateurs did you solicit comments from before you > > > submitted your > > > >proposal? I see your proposal has a section on "views > > considered" > > > from > > > >QRZ postings, but did you really go out and solicit comments > and > > > >reactions to your tentative proposal before you issued it? I > see > > > no > > > >record of that. > > > > > > > >Let's set the record straight. > > > > > > > > > > Gentlemen, Gentleman... who cares about the record? Let's > stick > > to > > > the > > > subject at hand. > > > > > > AFTER this subject has it's final outcome, whatever that is, > > -THEN- > > > you > > > can argue semantics. > > > > > > Let's us -at least- remember that this is OUR hobby. WE are in > > it, > > > > > > together. Let's US work toward that end, shall we? > > > > > > > > > --- > > > 73 = Best Regards, > > > -Geoff/W5OMR
