I was mostly commenting on the overall proposal not just the badly thought part on 80 meters This proposal included including the ASININE 6 and 2 meter ones and THEY ARE ARRL. The ARRL needs to get with it's membership AND THE USERS OF THESE BANDS BE IT 80 or 2 meters.
It is true that many others commented to the FCC but until it blew up the ARRL was quick to take credit for all of it. I PERSONALY SENT E-MAILS TO A NUMBER OF ARRL OFFICERS AND GOT NO ANSWERS ..... and the 6 meter users groups ( SMIRK ECT ) were never contacted and were incensed that 90% of the band was up for grabs with no thought of what it would do to them .... SO like 80 meters would have gone to others ...... At least for 6 the FCC acted wisely and didn't lissen to the ARRL .... who by that time had distant themselves...... ARRL WAKE UP ...... Bruce --- KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce, > > It is NOT the ARRL that made this decision. It was > the FCC! I don't > understand why a number of people, including > yourself, have been saying > such things. > > The government decision was not based upon ARRL's > proposal, but took > into consideration the many other comments and came > up with a political > decision that seemed right to them. There is NO > discussion with "all > involved," Bruce. What actually happens is that > anyone can make a > proposal and others can comment upon them. The ARRL > has no control over > this in any way. Some of their other proposals were > accepted, but not > the changes to 80 meters. > > I would be very surprised if the ARRL leadership was > not appalled at the > changes to 80 meters since it wreaks havoc with the > Section CW nets > which are a significant portion of the ARRL Field > Organization. Consider > that the Section nets, voice and CW here in my > Section and sometimes > even digital in some other Sections, form a > significant determinant as > to who is elected as SM. That position has total > control of all > appointments in the Section. Erosion of the net > structure weakens this > control. > > ARRL leadership is very supportive of digital modes, > and I think it is > fair to say even more than the average member or > even the average ham. > Steve Ford is the editor of QST and it would be hard > to find anyone more > supportive of digital technology. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > bruce mallon wrote: > > >OK at least someone answered this I AGREE ( and i'm > >not a code guy ) that this dosn't look well thought > >out and that any changes in the phone bands should > >have been discussed with ALL INVOLVED. > > > >BUT TRUE TO THE ARRL's new way of doing things they > >gave away the CW bands with little thought as to > what > >this would do to all others including PSK ect. > > > >The only brite thing is they did not distroy the 6 > and > >2 meter bands for now ..... ( YET ) > > > >Bruce WA4GCH > >SMIRK# 70 ( issued 2/74) > >QCWA, OOTC > >life member ARRL ( and still costing them money ) > >on 6 since 66 > > > > > > > >--- KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>Bruce, > >> > >>Yes, the FCC has now taken away many kilohertz of > >>CW/Data/RTTY > >>priveleges from Advanced and General Class hams. > The > >>most egregious > >>issue is the loss of the NTS CW frequencies that > >>have been around nearly > >>forever in ham radio time. > >> > >>It is simply not possible to run CW traffic nets > >>with only Extra Class > >>licensees. You need to bring in new people. Many > of > >>us started out on > >>the WNN (Wisconsin Novice Net) which had to be in > >>the Novice part of the > >>band, then moved to the WSSN (WI Slow Speed Net - > >>which means more like > >>10 to 15 wpm) and then eventually to the WIN-E and > >>WIN-L (WI Intra-State > >>Net Early and Late). Although I am no longer > active > >>with CW nets, but > >>used to be a WSSN NCS, I do find them pretty > amazing > >>to listen to for > >>traffic handling. Typically much faster than voice > >>traffic if you have > >>savvy operators. Of course, there are fewer of > them > >>now as the old guard > >>passes. > >> > >>I contacted my STM and had a long talk with him > via > >>telecon a couple of > >>days ago. At the time he hoped that there would be > >>some clarification > >>that would allow all classes to continue using the > >>3600 to 3750 sub band > >>for CW. Apparently, it is not to be! > >> > >>This afternoon, he sent out an e-mail to let > >>everyone know that the > >>entire Wisconsin Section Traffic Nets are moving > >>down to 3.555. The only > >>good thing you could say is that all the Wisconsin > >>Nets will be on this > >>one frequency in lieu of the current use of three > >>separate frequencies. > >>At least the Tech Plus and Novices can operate at > >>the new frequency too > >>but there are not very many in these shrinking > >>groups since no new > >>licenses can be issued. But I just can not imagine > >>how difficult it will > >>be to operate during weekends when there are > >>contests on CW/Digital. > >> > >>These changes are big changes. > >> > >>73, > >> > >>Rick, KV9U > >> > >> > >> > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
