[RTTY] ARRL board of Directors meeting this week

[Robert Chudek - K0RC]

Here's what I sent to my director and vice-director. I explicitly asked 
him to make a motion at the BoD meeting to rescind RM-11708. The Rules 
of Order during meetings then require a second on the motion and a 
discussion. I know my director is technically astute, but the main point 
would be to get this thing pulled from consideration at the FCC so it 
can be drafted with a more "reasoned" approach.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Request regarding RM-11708

Hello Greg and Kent,

My request is that you make a motion at the next BoD meeting for the 
ARRL to withdraw RM-11708 from the FCC. There are a variety of reasons 
why I feel this action would be prudent for the amateur radio community 
at large, and the ARRL in particular.

My first reason is because RM-11708 was (apparently) not vetted with the 
ARRL Board, let alone the membership, or even the sub-group of digital 
operators. This has created a huge (in the digital community) "us vs. 
them" standoff which can be seen by the volume of comments posted on the 
FCC website. There are technical aspects, but more so, there is a strong 
political "distaste" regarding how this proposal was submitted.

My second reason to request withdrawal is because RM-11708 is poorly 
written, with omissions and outright flaws. It appears to be driven 
(written) by one *Special Interest Group* that wants to bring 
unnecessary HF bandwidth capability to the ham bands. It is a poorly 
disguised attempt to allow Pactor 4 to become "legal" on the ham bands.

I have some first hand local experience regarding ECOM desires and 
needs. I attended a county-wide "Emergency Preparedness" meeting with 
Chisago County officials a number of years ago. The needs of 
communication was discussed at length, including their need for *secure 
communication channels during a civil emergency*. The officials want 
encrypted links when dealing with the variety of emergency issues.

I did not make any comments regarding the open communication 
characteristic of amateur radio at that time. But I did say to myself 
that their "need" pretty much dismisses the amateur radio contribution 
that could be made. That's because the *FCC regulations do not allow 
encrypted communication on the amateur radio bands*.

It is my understanding that Pactor 3 and Pactor 4 are proprietary 
protocols. The encoding/decoding is not open source. So I do not 
understand why the manufacturer and users believe these are legitimate 
transmissions within the amateur radio bands. Especially when it is 
explicitly forbidden in the amateur radio regulations.

Another aspect of encoded transmissions is it would diminish the "self 
regulatory" aspect of amateur radio. If an encoded transmission causes 
harmful interference, it is not possible to quickly identify the source 
of that interference. This therefore thwarts any "self regulation" by 
the radio amateurs themselves.

In these regards, RM-11708 needs to be withdrawn. There are other 
technical aspects to consider, but I don't need to dig that deep to 
decide to write and ask for your effort to remove RM-11708 (as it 
stands) and take a more encompassing look at this kind of proposal.

A dialog with the digital community would be in the best interest of the 
ARRL and for the amateur radio community at large. This has the 
potential to become another "Incentive Licensing" debacle which, as you 
know, drove a deep wedge in the membership. It's repercussion is still 
apparent today after decades have passed.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Chudek - KØRC

------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 1/12/2014 5:40 PM, Don Hill AA5AU wrote:
> Yes! Please do email your director now with your opinion on RM-11708. It's VERY IMPORTANT.
>
> If there is a motion by one of the directors to withdraw the petition, that director will need the support of seven additional
> directors in order to have a majority (there are 15 ARRL Divisions).
>
> A list of directors and vice directors can be found here:
>
> http://www.arrl.org/divisions
>
> 73, Don AA5AU
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mark
> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:23 PM
> To: RTTY contest group
> Subject: [RTTY] ARRL board of Directors meeting this week
>
> Be sure your Division Directors are aware of your opinions on rm-11708 (or anything else) as this will be the time they can address
> your concerns with the powers that be.
>
> I personally am hopeful that the lack of response to my emails is because with the pending BOD meeting they wished to defer any
> answer until it had been addressed at this larger forum.
>
> Mark. N2QT
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>