wrote in message
oups.com...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
[snip]
Bandplans and band usage are complicated issues where the ARRL or anyone
else is highly unlikely to be able to please everyone - the objective
needs
to be to work with the different interest groups towards compromises that
allow us to get to something that at least a significant majority can
accept
and say "I can live with that." If I become a member of the ARRL BoD I
would work with all of the interested parties in an effort to forge that
sort of result.
With all due respect, that's what everybody says. The trouble is with
the specifics. You've given us some good specifics, like support of a
'reasonable' subband for Morse Code only, and a similar 'reasonable'
subband for 'robots'.
The devil is in "what's reasonable"?
The way I see it there's probably no way to please everyone 100%.
Therefore, I think the solution is to work with all of the interested
"camps" to forge a compromise that at least a significant majority can
accept.
The optimum balance is probably something that will result in all of the
"camps" being able to say "It's not perfect in my ideal world, but I can
accept it and 'sign up' to support it."
I think the suggestion from the CW folks for a modest "CW only" segement at
the bottom of the band is reasonable and would ease a lot of concerns about
getting "squeezed out of existence."
I think that the proposal that some have made to "repurpose" the "refarming"
of the novice bands to provide a "digital playground" for the experimenters
who want to develop, test, and operate the higher speed, more robust digital
modes that the emergency management agencies want is also something that
merits consideration.
I agree that "robots" should not be allowed to take over the bands at the
expense of all of the other modes.
All of this would require some degree of compromise, but I think that's what
will be required to formulate something that gains widespread acceptance
instead of massive resistance.
In addition to significantly improving the general level of technical
knowledge and skill of hams,
That was a prime reason for "incentive licensing" 40 years ago!
I'm talking about improved educational programs ... it's clear that
"incentive licensing" created a huge schysm in the amateur community and
hasn't really worked. (I think part of the problem was linking increased
voice frequency privileges to the totally unrelated Morse test and the other
part was that it created in too many people's minds the idea that the
license meant you "knew all there was to know" - thereby removing the
motivation to progress even further.)
growing our numbers (both licensees and ARRL
members), protecting our spectrum, and getting more people trained for
and
involved in emergency communications, one of the MOST pressing problems
we
face is to reverse the trend of "compartmentalizing" ourselves into
"factions" whose whole world revolves around one mode or one activity,
because the resulting "turf wars," suspicion/mistrust/paranoia,
in-fighting,
and attacks on each other divide us in ways that both are bad for the ARS
as
it's seen externally and bad for the ARS internally as we get along with
(or
don't) each other.
We should ALL be "hams" (period) and work together cooperatively and
constructively going forward into the future on the truly important
issues
facing ham radio and the ARRL.
The trouble is that ham radio covers such a wide range of activities
that there's trouble finding common ground in some cases.
The common ground should be that we're all hams - with recognition that
different people have different operating interests and cooperating instead
of always being so defensive and turf-war oriented.
For example, you have folks who want to use equipment and modes that
are
decades old, and folks who think anything less than their concept of
SOTA is "obsolete". Folks who want more room for SSB (and even "hi-fi
SSB") and folks who want more room for digital. Folks who don't even
have a computer in the shack and folks who never actually listen to a
signal (they watch it on the waterfall display).
Appliance ops and homebrew-from-scratch folks. DXers, contesters,
ragchewers, emcomm folks. Those who are stuck with compromise and
stealth antennas and those with tons of aluminum aloft.
How do you get all those folks to see that there is value in what each
of them brings to the table?
Education, encouragement, and, in severe cases, peer pressure (through the
clubs is one way) to "play nicer together."
ALL hams should treat each other with
respect and courtesy, regardless of license class or operating
preferences.
Experienced hams need to welcome new hams with the spirit of patience and
helpfulness that "Elmering" embodies, rather than treating them as some
inferior form of life.
As mentioned before - that goes both ways.
That's true ... newbies shouldn't "cop an attitude" and neither should OTs.
--
73,
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
Life Member, ARRL
Life Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, TAPR
Member, AMSAT-NA
Member, LVARC (Lehigh Valley ARC)
Member, Lehigh County ARES/RACES
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.22 WG on Wireless Regional Area Networks
------------------------------------------------------