[VHFcontesting] [VHF] Use It or Lose It

[Les Rayburn]

Steve,

I wondered how long it would take for someone to bring up Chamberlin. Good 
Lord...

Corporate giants are hardly Nazi's--and your facts are simply in error.

It is possible to craft legislation that would be difficult to nearly 
impossible to change on the whim of a politician. Take arms control for 
example. In the wake of 9/11 many would have eagerly rushed forward to 
building, testing, and deploying nuclear 'Bunker Buster" weapons, but well 
crafted legislation made that all but impossible--even with a tremendous 
amount of political will and public opinion being widely in favor of it.

So instead of wasting our time on a futile battle for every inch of ground, 
why not use the time remaining to us to craft an effective compromise? Why 
not help to shape our own fate, instead of waiting for others to define it. 
Sure, you can wage legal and political battles and make it difficult for the 
wireless providers to get what they want/need for awhile, but the cause is 
doomed. Hams simply will not enjoy this spectrum forever. I'm not even sure 
we have a right to try. What have we done with it?

My comment about EMCOMM simply reflects that reality as well. Each passing 
year, our wireless networks are increasingly "hardened" to withstand 
disasters and sudden spikes in traffic. Widespread regional failures of all 
telecommunications will be less and less of a problem with each passing 
year. In ten years, I imagine that they'll be all but unheard of. When/if 
that happens, how much clouts will hams have then?

That's another reason why we need to act now to hammer out something long 
term.


Steve--if you have another solution I'm all ears. But fighting for every 
inch of ground will only doom us to failure. Our "lands" will be as small as 
the Native American reservations are today. This isn't gun control, because 
the vast majority of American's own guns. An even greater number support our 
constitutional right to own them. But most folks are not hams. You have no 
constitutional right to spectrum. You are a member of a small, special 
interest hobbyist group. Fortunately for all of us, it's one that is useful 
from time to time. But don't overestimate your usefulness, or the strength 
of your position. You're holding a pair, not a full house.

73,

Les Rayburn, N1LF
EM63nf
121 Mayfair Park
Maylene, AL 35114


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Crownhaven" <crownhaven at bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 7:22 PM
To: "Les Rayburn" <les at highnoonfilm.com>
Cc: "Keith Morehouse" <w9rm at yahoo.com>; <vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu>; "VHF 
Contesting Reflector" <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [VHF] Use It or Lose It

> I disagree Les.  No good deed goes unpunished.  I think industry would be 
> astonished and find us weak.  They have no scruples, morals, ethics.  It 
> is all about the share price.  You could make an agreement with the devil 
> tomorrow and they would throw it out the window as soon as they decided it 
> didn't benefit them anymore.
>
> I see this kind of like I see gun control.  If you give them an inch, they 
> want a mile.  If you give them a foot, they want ten miles.  The same 
> thing would start happening with the spectrum issues.  There is no truth 
> on the hill.  It is all about money and greed.  If you have something they 
> want, you have to be prepared to fight and fight hard for it.  Appeasement 
> never works.  Neville Chamberlain would have told you that.  And someone 
> else out there right now is finding out the same thing.
>
> Why do you say our EMCOMM value has peaked??????  That was an interesting 
> comment.
>
> Steve, N4JQQ, EM55
>
> Les Rayburn wrote:
>> It's a widely held viewpoint that compromise never works, and that only 
>> conflict solves problems. Unfortunately, history doesn't really support 
>> that argument.
>>
>> The key part of my suggestion is that we negotiate now, while we still 
>> have enough valuable spectrum to make compromise worthwhile to our 
>> adversaries, while we have enough value as an emergency communications 
>> asset to give us political leverage, and our only effective lobbying 
>> voice (The ARRL) has enough membership to provide a deterrent to legal 
>> action.
>>
>> Our two primary objectives in the negotiations would be legislation to 
>> protect the remainder of our spectrum from future encroachment, and 
>> reasonable accommodation of amateur antennas to allow us to continue 
>> pursuing our hobby. A third would be to seek "replacement" spectrum in 
>> the LF and MF ranges.
>>
>> If we were successful in obtaining those objectives, I'd consider that a 
>> fair trade for the spectrum we enjoy above 1.2ghz.
>>
>> Let's face facts, no matter the amount of donations to the Spectrum 
>> Defense Fund, a protracted conflict is almost certainly doomed to 
>> ultimate failure. The pressure for spectrum shows no end in sight, or 
>> replacement for the resources. Given that fact, commercial enterprises 
>> will always be able to outspend us--and eventually their voices will be 
>> heard.
>>
>> Our value as an EMCOMM partner has peaked--and our numbers continue to 
>> shrink overall. We're fast becoming a very expensive, special interest 
>> group of only limited value to our fellow citizens.
>>
>> "Fighting" is going to be futile. Meaningful compromise with legislative 
>> protection of our spectrum is our best hope for the future.
>>
>> Perhaps with fewer bands to choose from, we'll have more success 
>> attracting hams onto the VHF/UHF bands that remain.
>>
>> I fear our discussion is in vain, regardless. The ARRL's primary focus is 
>> charted not by it's membership, but by professional fundraisers, who 
>> guide most non-profits these days. Fulfilling the objectives of the 
>> organization are secondary to raising money-and this issue will be no 
>> exception. Calls and mailings will pour forth from Newington sounding the 
>> battle call for the "Spectrum Defense Fund". Protracted legal battles 
>> will ensue, and our the crisis will be milked for every dime possible. 
>> The specter of threats to the HF bands will be raised too, no doubt.
>>
>> In the end, this will amount to a tempest in a teacup, and hams will lose 
>> our microwave spectrum. And with it, any stature we have remaining with 
>> Congress. We'll be seen for what we largely are; obstructionists who 
>> place our selfish desire for unused spectrum above the public good. Our 
>> enemies will paint us as "grumpy old men" of limited value---and in the 
>> end, we'll lose much more than we could have likely retained through 
>> compromise.
>>
>> What I propose is simple. Draft and extend a meaningful compromise that 
>> gives up the minimum amount of spectrum possible, while obtaining the 
>> best future position for the hobby. Understanding that everything is a 
>> negotiation, we might suggest all bands above 10ghz, along with the 3 and 
>> 5ghz bands.
>>
>> If we position ourselves as reasonable men, willing to sacrifice for the 
>> good of all, we will be better able to defend ourselves in the future, no 
>> matter the outcome. We'll make it harder for our enemies to paint us as 
>> being unwilling to listen to reason, and unbendable to compromise.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Les Rayburn, N1LF
>> EM63nf
>> 121 Mayfair Park
>> Maylene, AL 35114
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Les Rayburn, N1LF
>> EM63nf
>> 121 Mayfair Park
>> Maylene, AL 35114
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Keith Morehouse" <w9rm at yahoo.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:12 PM
>> To: <vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [VHF] Use It or Lose It
>>
>>> With spectrum being worth millions (if not billions) per MHz, don't you 
>>> think compromise might just keep the commercial entities coming back for 
>>> more and more until there's nothing left ?
>>>
>>> It's been proven time and time again that more times then not, 
>>> compromise will lead to a total loss of whatever it is you're 
>>> compromising on.
>>>
>>> What's "limited use" to you might be very important to someone else.
>>>
>>> W9RM
>>>
>>> *************************************
>>>
>>>
>>> Les Rayburn <les at highnoonfilm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think we gain more by painting ourselves as reasonable stewards of the 
>>> spectrum, and recognize that our own use of the frequencies is very 
>>> limited. Instead of fighting tooth and nail to hold onto them, why not 
>>> reasonably negotiate a settlement that provides hams with a better 
>>> ability to utilize and enjoy the bands were occupancy rates are higher? 
>>> Especially if such a negotiation leads to long term protection of the 
>>> spectrum we now occupy?
>>> ------
>>> Submissions:                    vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu
>>> Subscription/removal requests:  vhf-request at w6yx.stanford.edu
>>> Human list administrator:       vhf-approval at w6yx.stanford.edu
>>> List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
>> ------
>> Submissions:                    vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu
>> Subscription/removal requests:  vhf-request at w6yx.stanford.edu
>> Human list administrator:       vhf-approval at w6yx.stanford.edu
>> List rules and information:    http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
> ------
> Submissions:                    vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu
> Subscription/removal requests:  vhf-request at w6yx.stanford.edu
> Human list administrator:       vhf-approval at w6yx.stanford.edu
> List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/