When the "professional management" and Legal Counsel don't know enough
- or don't have the balls - to tell two renegade Directors that the FCC
have already told ARRL that they will not approve wideband modes in the
spectrum traditionally set aside to protect narrow band modes from the
asymmetric interference from wide band modes, the CEO and Legal Counsel
need to go.
In 2006 the Commission told ARRL exactly what needed to be done when
they allowed image modes up to 500 Hz to be treated as data and operate
in the narrow band spectrum. K1ZZ has been saying that "regulation by
bandwidth" is some strange new concept that overturns everything we
have now. That's a bald face lie - in WT 04-104 (FCC 06-149)
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-149A1.pdf>
(footnote 89, page 12) the Commission clearly and unequivocally stated:
Separation of emission types by bandwidth minimizes or reduces
interference because it protects narrow signals from interference
from wide signals. Amateur licensees have accepted this division of
spectrum as a method for minimizing interference for as long as the
amateur service has been regulated, and no commenter in this
proceeding requests eliminating emission segmentation based on
bandwidth.
If ARRL had simply asked that RTTY and data be permitted in all of
each band subject to the restrictions already in 97.307(f)(2) and
added a 400 or 500 Hz limit for all modes in the traditional narrow
band allocations, we would not be having this debate.
ARRL could concentrate on productive work like asking for regulations
that: 1) require all protocols used below 30 MHz be fully documented
(including data encoding "keys"); 2) that the "automatic operation"
sub-bands be moved to the highest 5% of all bands greater than 300 KHz
wide so the automatic systems can avail themselves of wider bandwidths;
3) require that all digital systems include a spectrum (or "waterfall")
display [for systems under local control] or functioning busy channel
detectors [for systems under automatic or remote control] to prevent
interference; and 4) eliminate the exemption which allows automatically
controlled stations to answer stations under local or remote control
outside the automatic control sub-bands.
All of these are things that a competent CEO (who served on the ad hoc
committee) and Legal Counsel (who drafted the petition) should have
known and insisted on as part of the process.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 3/30/2014 8:31 PM, Neal Campbell wrote:
I agree except they should be representing all of us, not necessarily just
those opposed to the proposal (or those in favor as it seems they are right
now). The end-around they did (in spite of being instructed to get our
feedback in the minutes of the board meeting) warrant a change in
leadership. Thats what burns me the most.
Neal Campbell
Abroham Neal LLC
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists@subich.com> wrote:
I just wish the League would be transparent enough to tell us what
the hell they are doing. Either we or the league are completely
wrong on this thing.
Since the League are supposed to be representing *US* and it is not
chartered in Putin's Russia, it is obvious that the League's "Staff
and Management" - including its CEO who has put his name to most of
the BS in print - are dead wrong and need to be replaced.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 3/30/2014 7:58 PM, Neal Campbell wrote:
Carter,
I agree with you 100%. I find that the business angle of ham radio
(including its lobbying arm) is so small that almost every company is 1 or
2 bad quarters away from closing its doors. Equipment manufacturers
(outside of Flex and Elecraft) are in the ham business, not for windfall
projects, but because it costs very little for them to take their existing
technology and sell it to us.
Dennis Bodson, one of the two supporting directors, is one of my customers
and I have worked with him a lot over the past 2-3 years. I would be
incredibly surprised if he is "following the money" and I sincerely doubt
there is any money to follow. He is a very humble, friendly and gracious
person.
So what is the game going on?
When I read the "robot response" FAQs, its almost like they are talking
about a completely different proposal than the one we are fighting.
Thinking cynically (and its hard not to), they could be feeding us the
FAQs
to convince us we don't have a clue whats going on.
I don't like to think cynically so it must be something I just do not see.
For sure, the two directors pushing this have a very hard road for
reelection.
I just wish the League would be transparent enough to tell us what the
hell
they are doing. Either we or the league are completely wrong on this
thing.
73
Neal Campbell
Abroham Neal LLC
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Carter <k8vt@ameritech.net> wrote:
On 3/30/2014 3:28 PM, Thomas W4HM wrote:
I don't want to start an ARRL rant thread but when I came to understand
this I dropped my ARRL membership. Yes I know about the argument that
you
can't change how the ARRL operates if you are not a member. But I just
don't buy that logic as the ARRL does not listen to it's membership no
matter what.
Nothing is perfect, not even the ARRL.
Nothing is all black or all white.
You say you quit the ARRL because you disagreed with them on -an- issue.
Do you really expect them to agree with you (and you with them) 100% of
the
time on every issue?
Even though you may disagree with them on -this- issue, I would
respectfully submit that the ARRL, in general, does a lot of good for ham
radio.
Like it or not, they are the only game in town, the only national
organization we have...and IMHO, deserving of our support.
Just my 2 cents...
73,
Carter K8VT
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|