With all this attention, no wonder you do all you can on these forums to
support the ARRL. I, too have made contact with my director and vice
director via email and have received positive responses to my queries. My
director is a man of few words but very responsive to questions. I salute
him for his effort. He also voted against submitting RM 11306 to the FCC.
He, too, writes emails to us here in division.
But this is only two of them. I have seen others on this reflector relate
problems with their director. So if only two of 15 have positive praise,
then some are behind the curve. I had contact with my director when I lived
in another division a couple of years ago. That director was the direct
opposite of what I have now.
Some will say this is democratic action, but I don't believe many of the
directors took the same outlook the one I have did. Sadly many members
don't do computer, don't go to all the hamfests, so naturally those who have
been left out, feel as if the ARRL BoD is being self important and
supporting a very small minority of amateurs.
Since the Amateur bands are supposed to be partially for experimentation,
why have any limits on emission types at all in a portion of the bands so
new creations would have space to try new experiments. Since the 50s the
FCC has determined the type, width and power we could utilize. Should there
be a portion of the bands where a ham with a new idea could try it by simply
notifying the FCC what he (they) are doing? Would this not let the digital
mode test simultaneous data and voice transmissions? Let it be a portion of
the band where true experimentation can be completed with minimal
regulation.
I am not sure, I fully support RM 11305 for some of the reasons you have
stated eloquently, but I see it as the best alternative; therefore I am in
favor of it. If we are to be an experimental group, give a portion of the
band where experiments can be performed without interference from the ARRL
or FCC. Reduce the CW portion, since digital signals today are so narrow
move them down the bands then create at portion for experimental purposes.
Then expand the phone bands. This isn't going to happen so I support RM
11305 because it opens the bands to more activity to the greatest number of
operators.
73 Jim
W5JO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Markavage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] ARRL Bashing
Like Larry, I believe our Division has also been blessed with great
leadership over the last several years. Every month, without fail, all
members of our division receive an e-mail (if they signed up for it)
newsletter, to keep us all informed of happenings and current or future
issues on the table relative to the amateur radio service. This is
generally over and above the weekly "ARRL Letter" that all members can
receive.
When the initial ARRL draft proposal was still being formulated in 2003,
our Director and Vice-Director made it point to attend local hamfests to
discuss the draft proposal idea with as many as possible of the hamfest
attendees. They also attended club meetings in their area to discuss the
pending draft proposal, along with other issues of the time, to solicit
input before the draft proposal came to print. Since he knew I enjoyed
the AM mode, we also discussed that aspect of the proposal on two
occasions when he stopped at my hamfest table. Some things we agreed on,
and others we didn't see eye to eye, but at least we had the dialogue.
After the initial draft proposal was made public, there was a time frame
of 15 months to make comments back to the ARRL. The initial draft
proposal was modified several times before it was finally submitted to
the FCC. Anyone who believes the ARRL should have come personally
"knocking on your door" asking for "your personal input", before they
submitted the proposal, is living in a fantasy land. The access for
making personal input was available for 15 months via e-mail, from a link
on the ARRL site, and via your Director prior to submission to the FCC.
Contrast this to the CTT proposal members, RM-11305, whose members
solicited little to no input from the entire amateur radio community and
wrote and submitted a proposal that affects us all going forward. With
their proposal, they effectively want to turn amateur radio back 80 years
(any mode, any where), rather than moving amateur radio and the amateur
radio service forward. In my opinion, a very shameful display of total
lack of consideration for our amateur radio service.
Pete, wa2cwa
