[RTTY] What is this auto mode that QRM's me?

Mon Mar 31 06:25:19 EDT 2014

Joe is correct; (see below) however, there is a bigger picture.

The two 'directors' put forth their 'ideas' (influenced by
whatever behind the scenes motivation) and the legal counsel
was tasked with that endeavor. If there was an advanced 'legal
opinion', at all, it was of no consequence. In other words,
the legal counsel was given a job. Had there been a conflict
another person would have been assigned the job.

Legal counsel represents their client(s) to the extent of being
their 'mouthpiece'.

Replacing these two directors may not be the answer. They are
merely the 'face' of the beast. There is a grander design.

I return to the context of my previous posting. For the truth
to be known merely "Follow the money".

73 de Phil - N8PS

, Quoting "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>:

>
> 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 at 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 at 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 at contesting.com
>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>>>>
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>