[Orion] ARRL

[Tommy]

By permission, I am posting this to the Orion reflector because it pertains
directly to this radio, among others. Like myself, I would guess that many
of us do not pay serious attention to what the ARRL is doing, or in this
case, proposing to the FCC. But this bit of information is one reason that
think that maybe we SHOULD pay attention to what they are doing!

I am a life member of the ARRL and have been for a very long time. I have
seen what the present management of the ARRL have been doing to our hobby
and I do not think it is good. Responses to the ARRL about this proposal are
seldom answered by neither the management or the 'elected' directors.

It would be a real shame if we collectively continue to sit on our butt and
let this go unchallenged.

Tommy

W4BQF


Hi Tom,

Some time back we exchanged email about QRQ and how like Dr. Pepper, high
speed CW operators are misunderstood.  I think that was around the time you
were moving from Virginia.

The reason for this email is to ask if you and your QRQ buddies are
following ARRL's actions as they prepare a Petition for Regulation by
Emission Bandwidth.   The league's desire to place explicit bandwidth limits
on transmitters is among the more controversial issues contained in their
petition.  Considerable discussion centers on their proposed 3 kHz limit on
SSB transmitters.  There is widespread speculation that a large number of
existing transmitters can't meet that spec.

Their proposed 200 Hz limit in CW bands has received very little attention
in online forums like eHam and QRZ.  On both sites I raised concerns about
placing such a tight spec on CW operations.  Unfortunately, my concerns
stimulated no follow up discussion.  I suppose those forums are not heavily
populated by CW operators.  Or perhaps the slow code crowd (obviously the
majority these days) perceives no threat.

I also contacted ARRL and referred to product reviews of two popular
transceivers where spectrum analyzer plots at -26dB show Orion bandwidth at
250 Hz and MK V Field at 500 Hz when modulated by 60 wpm dits.  Since that
data came from ARRL's own lab, I felt it was appropriate evidence their 200
Hz limit needs more scrutiny before asking FCC to codify it into Part 97
regulations.  I sent polite emails on two separate occasions and received no
response.

True, those of us with interest in QRQ CW are a statistically insignificant
minority.  The ARRL petition would not make QRQ illegal, but it could force
operators out of the traditional CW band and up into sub bands allocated for
wider digital emissions. Bandwidth regulation of code transmission has never
been required in any radio service since CW replaced spark.  If anything,
wider bandwidths have been encouraged as a consequence of high speed
operation, aka advancing the radio art.



I never thought I would live to see the day that Morse Code proficiency
would be penalized on amateur bands.  That day has not come yet and it won't
if the ARRL petition does not go forward in its present form.  ARRL members
need to let their opinons be known and there is urgency in this since the
next board meeting is in July.

Alternatively, if the ARRL petition is presented to FCC and assigned a
notice of proposed rule making, individuals will have an opportunity to make
formal comments.  It's much easier these days to be part of the process
thanks to the Electronic Comment Filing System on FCC's web site.

Sorry this became so lengthy Tom.  But I hope you found it worth reading.
Like all of my ham buddies, I am not a political mover and shaker.  But
ARRL's vision of digitized amateur radio is being pursued in haste with
reckless disregard for traditional interests.  This is one time we shouldn't
just sit back and see what happens.

73,

Mike W8MW