Why the scare quotes around compromise? I know that your emotions are running high about this proposal, but what you propose is, in fact, a compromise because what is important to the people who proposed this is eliminating the limitation on data rate, which makes no sense because one could, in fact, invent a data modulation method that takes up the entire 40 meter band and use it legally as long as the data rate was lower than the limit specified in the rules, and replacing the data rate limitation with a limitation on the bandwidth of a data signal. Your proposal would have somewhat different limits than the one proposed, but the real purpose of the ARRL's proposal is to make the rules make more sense, not to put wide signals into the lower parts of the HF bands.

I might suggest that the rules change such that wide-bandwidth data be allowed up in the phone section of the band and only low-bandwidth modes be allowed in any part of the CW bands.

On 06/15/2014 09:34 PM, Allen R. Brier via BVARC wrote:
If 'compromise' is the order of the day, and as you admit, RM-11708 is 'not 
perfect', then I propose the ARRL modify the wording of RM-11708 to limit DATA 
signals wider than 500 Hz to the top 10 or 15 kHz of the CW bands. Without that 
'compromise', I am **100% TOTALLY AGAINST RM-11708**. (That's how I figured out 
to live with it.)

I do agree that this should not have been brought up at the N1MM session, but 
that just proves how passionate some are about the subject.

Allen R. Brier N5XZ / KL5DX **LIFE MEMBER OF ARRL**
1515 Windloch Lane
Richmond, TX 77406-2553
281-342-1882 (Home)
713-705-4801 (Cell)
[email protected]
[email protected]



-----Original Message-----
From: K5HM [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 09:41
To: 'Keith Dutson'; 'Terry'; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; 'CTDXCC'; 'Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ'; 'Dr. David Woolweaver'
Cc: 'Stratton, John, N5AUS'; 'Dan White'; [email protected]; 'Alan Brown'; 
[email protected]
Subject: RE: [NARS] [CTDXCC] FW: [tdxs-list] RM-11708

All "the sky is falling" rhetoric does not serve cause of those opposed.  
Change is coming. Figure out ways to live with it.  RM-11708 is not perfect.  There needs 
to be compromise not fanatical opposition . . . or promotion.   The same is true for 
those who favor it; compromise.

I attended the N1MM session at Plano to learn, not to be proselytized.  I was 
very disappointed that the particular session was hijacked to promote a 
personal agenda.  That was totally out of line.  While I respect the 
presenter's scientific credentials, his misuse of the forum devalues the weight 
of his argument.

73,
Ron, K5HM
[email protected]
www.qrz.com/db/k5hm

-----Original Message-----
From: NARS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Dutson
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:25 AM
To: 'Terry'; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
'CTDXCC'
Cc: 'Stratton, John, N5AUS'; 'Dan White'; [email protected]; 'Alan Brown'; 
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [NARS] [CTDXCC] FW: [tdxs-list] RM-11708

I have a suggestion.  Let's pour all of our energy into assessing the actual 
impact of RM-110708.  If there is proof that the bands are being degraded, then 
it should be easy to get a petition together to repeal the action.

73, Keith NM5G

-----Original Message-----
From: NARS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Terry
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 6:59 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'CTDXCC'
Cc: 'Dan White'; [email protected]; 'Alan Brown'; [email protected]; 
'Stratton, John, N5AUS'
Subject: Re: [NARS] [CTDXCC] FW: [tdxs-list] RM-11708

Allen,

Thanks for taking a stand against RM-11708.   I have one of the Dayton 
Anti-RM-11708 buttons for you and will be hanging around the DFW Contest lunch 
and presentations Friday.

Does anyone know when the ARRL Q&A session is on Saturday.   I sure hope it's 
in a big room.

Terry AB5K


-----Original Message-----
From: CTDXCC [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Allen R. Brier
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:54 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; CTDXCC
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [CTDXCC] FW: [tdxs-list] RM-11708

More on RM-11708.

Allen R. Brier

1515 Windloch Lane

Richmond, TX 77406-2553

281-342-1882 (Home)

281-342-1590 (Home Office)

713-705-4801 (Cell)

  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

From: Dave Rogers [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 18:58
To: Dr. David Woolweaver
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [tdxs-list] RM-11708

David,

Thanks for your reply. I completely understand that you will be fully occupied with 
HamCom. I will again present these questions at the ARRL Q&A session on 
Saturday. And I can virtually guarantee you that these will be the only questions 
on the agenda. This is the MOST divisive issue since incentive licensing. So if I 
were you I would bring my kevlar vest.

73,

dave

On Jun 11, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Dr. David Woolweaver <[email protected]> 
wrote:

Dave:

You deserve a detailed answer, but I have to postpone that answer as I am 
preparing for the Regional Centennial Convention at HamCom.  There are lots of 
things to do before Friday.

David

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:50 PM, Dave Rogers <[email protected]> wrote:

David,

I have read everything the League has published about the proposed RM-11708 and so far I 
cannot find the reason for this proposed rule making. No where does the League state the 
problem that this change attempts to solve. And so far as I can tell the only effect of 
this proposal is dramatically increased QRM on the lower portion of all the HF bands. 
When recently asked about all the new QRM by one our members (K0IDT), David Sumner, K1ZZ 
gave a totally inappropriate smart aleck reply, "short term frequency conflicts are 
best dealt with by using the VFO knob".

Since you attend BOD meetings as out West Gulf Division Director and are on the 
Executive Committee I’m sure you must have a better handle on this situation 
than everyone else. Please explain what the problem that RM-11708 attempts to 
correct. Please explain why the ARRL is making this proposal in contravention 
of IARU recommendations. Please explain why we now need to put automated wide 
bandwidth digital signals into the traditionally narrow bandwidth portion of 
the HF bands. Without a better response from the League than Sumner’s sorry 
comment I will start lobbying everyone in my ham radio circle to file comments 
with the FCC urging the Commission to deny RM-11708.

We deserve better than this from the ARRL.

73,

dave

--

Dave Rogers, NR5K

[email protected]

--

Dave Rogers, NR5K

[email protected]

_______________________________________________
CTDXCC mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ctdxcc

______________________________________________________________
NARS mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nars
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[email protected]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
NARS mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nars
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[email protected]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html



_______________________________________________
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