I think that a better compromise would be divide the bands into narrow and wide
portions and put the automated wide band digital in with the SSB. The CW bands
don't particularly need to be expanded, but we have compromised more than
enough with the portions of the band we have given up to SSB along with sharing
with narrow band digital (including RTTY) and foreign SSB. If I had known that
it would be brought up at the N1MM session I would not have skipped it for
shopping and socialization. I suppose I am not as passionate as Allen because
I have been finding time for MSWE and DX, but I am in agreement that this is
the worst idea that ARRL has promoted since incentive licensing and that
includes no code licensing.
Willis 'Cookie' Cooke, TDXS DX Chairman
K5EWJ & Trustee N5BPS, USS Cavalla, USS Stewart
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 9:35 PM, Allen R. Brier via BVARC <[email protected]>
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
