Re: [BVARC] [tdxs-list] Why has the ARRL pushed so hard for RM-11708? Perhaps the answer has been found. You decide for yourself.

Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:39:37 -0700

With all due respect to Mr. Gerdes, I did not find his presentation to be all that compelling. In particular, I thought the "smoking gun" of the ARRL and the US Power Squadron doing joint marketing for people who were both boaters and radio amateurs was pretty lame. I understand the point about promoting amateur radio to people who should be using other services instead (marine radio, for the case of the USPS) but the Memorandum of Understanding as written appeared to be a pretty generic cross-marketing agreement. There might even be a similar agreement between the ARRL and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association or the Hell's Angels, but so what? The ARRL is supposed to promote ham radio to everybody. Is there any evidence that the ARRL or the USPS is sending out or has sent out to the USPS membership stuff that would encourage boaters to get a ham license so they can send email from their boat?
I'm also not sure that the chart he shows about Winlink usage shows what he purports it to show. My understanding, and an understanding is all it is because I find Winlink about as interesting as another root canal, is that Winlink is useful for communicating with a Winlink gateway and that there are only a few of those gateways and they're going to be on "well-known" frequencies. In other words, I'd like to see some more details of the methodology, like a description of how he determined that the signals were Winlink signals, and maybe a fuller description of how Winlink works and why the signals are where they are, before I accept that it's a true thing. In particular, how does he know these were automated stations? Does the interference change if it was two humans making a QSO? 


The board minutes that show that the ARRL is encouraging the deployment 
of Winlink and email via HF is in the context of ARES, and I can 
understand that as being within the ARES mandate.  I'm not interested in 
ARES myself, but it would seem to be useful for them.



I also disagree with the statement that wide and narrow bandwidth modes 
don't mix well.  I find it quite easy to fit a CW conversation between 
SSB conversations, or would if I could find someone to do CW up in the 
phone parts of the band.



I could go on, but the gist is what I said above:  I don't find his 
argument compelling.



My position is this:  In order for this to be a huge deal, someone has 
to invent a high speed data modulation scheme, and a fair number of 
people have to adopt it and use it on a regular basis. I can see the 
invention happening because lots of people seem to be interested in 
seeing it happen, but I just don't see the conditions that would allow 
for widespread adoption.  High speed data, where "high speed" is faster 
than a person can type, is simply not interesting to me because it's all 
about machines talking to other machines, something I consider 
dreadfully dull, and trying to get a high speed link to work on HF 
strikes me as a good hobby for someone who is very tolerant of 
frustration. Disinterest in high-speed data communications on the ham 
bands seems widespread, too.  So, it seems to me that even if the 
rulemaking happens, 2.8KHz-wide signals wouldn't likely be taking over 
the bottom end of the HF bands any time soon, if ever.



Oh, and allow me to dispute the "If it doesn't show up on the waterfall 
display and the computer doesn't decrypt it for them then it doesn't 
exist."  I don't believe that CW (or RTTY or PSK or Pactor or whatever) 
will fail to show up on the waterfall display, and I can copy the CW 
from the display.  Of course, I don't claim the behavior to be universal 
among JT-65 (my preferred mode) users, but I try hard to not step on any 
signals, no matter what they are.  That's of course limited by the fact 
that propagation is not symmetric and my antennas aren't near as nice as 
Mr. Gerdes's so I may literally be unable to hear the signals that he 
might find me stepping on.  That's not something that's limited to 
digital modes, but is a fact of life on HF.


On 6/11/2014 8:28 AM, Bob via BVARC wrote:

Thank you for forwarding this information.  I have filed my comments 
with the FCC as a result.



Terry, AB5K, in my opinion, is a very respected person and I value his 
input.  He is always respectful of the ARRL and the FCC even though he 
may disagree with their actions.  I applaud him for his comments on 
this subject.



And, I encourage all others to "take the time" to file your comments 
with the FCC regarding RM11708.  This one really needs our time.


Thank you,
Bob Hardie
W5UQ

On 06/10/2014 4:06 PM, Earl Morse wrote:

I commented 6 months ago.  This was my comment:

"With the proliferation of digital modes and their ever changing protocols the 
wise
thing to do is dictate occupied bandwidth as the limiter rather than baud rate. 
As
protocols change the rules won't have to as long as the new protocols meet the
bandwidth requirements. Good operating practice should still dictate how digital
modes coexist with other modes but that isn't covered in this proceeding."

My problem with digital modes is that they don't know the meaning of QRL?.  
Most of those ops aren't listening to what is going on when they fire up on a 
frequency.  If it doesn't show up on the waterfall display and the computer 
doesn't decrypt it for them then it doesn't exist.  Unfortunately, the ARRL 
thinks they are special enough that they don't have to ask QRL? either and the 
ARRL Bulletin and code practice transmissions just fire up and expect you to 
move.

It should have been obvious that other services such as boaters would hijack ham 
frequencies when it became easy enough to obtain a license.  So while we may not have 
lost our frequencies due to inactivity it looks like we may not be able to use them due 
to the proliferation of use by other "non traditional" amateur services.

Actually, I thought that RM11708 was pretty innocuous since it was so vague but 
I guess I may have to read it again with this in mind.

Earl
N8SS

[email protected]  wrote:

From: "William K. Carr III"<[email protected]>
To: "'TDXS Reflector'"<[email protected]>
Subject: [tdxs-list] Why has the ARRL pushed so hard for RM-11708? Perhaps      
the answer has been found. You decide for yourself.
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:40:23 -0500

For those who have been active contesters over the years, you know Terry,
AB5K.   Please take time to read the information posted on the well worded
websites mentioned below.


  


I've monitored comments here on the TDXS reflector as well as other sites.
I'm sure you will find the information insightful and honest.


  


I have already filed my comments against RM-11708. I encourage you to read
this information and file your comments.


  


Kim, K5TU


  


From: Terry [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:25 PM
To:[email protected];[email protected]; 'RTTY';
[email protected]
Cc: 'David Woolweaver'; 'Stratton, John, N5AUS'; 'Ted'; 'Dan White'; 'Tom
Morrison'; 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Ron Kolarik'; 'Bob Pack NX5M'; 'Mark';
'Angelo Glorioso'; 'William K. Carr III'; 'K5WA'; 'Colin Jenkins'; 'Mike
Schoppe ( N5XJ )';[email protected]; 'Don AA5AU'; 'Bob Farmer';
'Brad Rehm'; 'Bart Doering';[email protected]; 'Dave Zeph'; 'Bob Farmer';
[email protected]; 'Richard L. King';[email protected];[email protected];
'Mark Whatley'; 'Pete Smith N4ZR'; 'Rick Ellison';[email protected];
'Peter Laws'; 'Phil Duff'; 'Ron | K5XK'; 'Gary J - N5BAA'; 'Rick
Murphy/K1MU'; 'Scott';[email protected]; 'Thomas W4HM'; 'William K. Carr III';
[email protected];[email protected]; 'Jeff Stai'; 'Mike Schoppe ( N5XJ )'
Subject: Why has the ARRL pushed so hard for RM-11708? Perhaps the answer
has been found. You decide for yourself.


  


Folks,


  


The presentation titled  "Why has the ARRL pushed so hard for RM-11708?
Perhaps the answer has been found"  was presented to the Central Texas DX
and Contest Club last night and was well received.  The presentation is now
on-line in web format at:


  


http://SaveCW.com/Rm11708Interests.htm


  


The presentation details the ARRL BOD actions for Winlink and developing
recreational boater products that are causing interference across the
amateur bands.   It also details the interference by Winlink stations to the
W1AW Centennial operation and a response from K1ZZ at HQ to just go spin the
dial.


  


After reading the web page ask yourself the following questions.   Has
amateur radio been hijacked by recreational boaters?  Do you feel the
majority of traditional amateur radio operator interests are being
discounted in favor of a minority special interest group?  What happened to
traditional core amateur radio values of transparency, self policing, not
competing with commercial services, and not transmitting quasi-encrypted
waveforms?  Finally, ask yourself is this what amateur radio is really
about?


  


As documented on the web site there are many folks concerned about the
direction the ARRL is taking and about additional damages caused by
RM-11708.   There are many reasons why RM-11708 is bad  - all documented at
www.SaveCW.com    orwww.SaveRtty.com.


  


Please take a few minutes and log a comment against RM-11708 with the FCC.
It's a simple process and only takes a few minutes.   Detailed instructions
for filing a FCC comment can be found here
<http://www.savecw.com/RM11708.pdf>  .


  


Please forward this email to all reflectors and anyone you feel may be
interested in helping save our amateur spectrum.


  


Thanks,


  


Terry  AB5K


  

  




_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.tdxs.net/mailman/options/tdxs-list/kz8e%40wt.net


_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.tdxs.net/mailman/options/tdxs-list/w5uq2%40att.net





_______________________________________________
BVARC mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org



_______________________________________________
BVARC mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org






















					Reply via email to