RadioBanter - View Single Post

December 12th 05, 11:54 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
From: on Dec 11, 8:08 pm

wrote:
K؈B wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote

That's what will be the real problem. As so many have pointed out, there is
no organization to which the majority of hams belongs, at least inthis
country. While the ARRL is the largest, the majority of the ham population
does NOT belong to it and will likely scream bloody murder if theywere to get
to establish the band plan.

That's what makes the IARU an attractive vehicle. While no individual pays
memberships dues in IARU, all hams are defacto members of IARU because each
country has a representative who represents ALL hams in their jurisdiction
independent of whether they are members of the national "club" like ARRL, RAC,
RSGB, DARC, JARL, or whatever.

But there's a big problem there....see below

You always know better than everyone else. See below.

Tsk, we've seen it many, many times... :-(

IARU is not a government agency. It is us, the hams of the world, totally
independent of national governments and independent of international
organizations like ITU or CEPT. Who better than the hams to decide how
ham frequencies should be used? Are we so conditioned to "big government"
dependency that (within our allocations) we need disinvolved government
bureaucrats to make decisions that much more logically belong to theactual
affected users?

But do the actual users get a real voice? Do I get to vote on the bandplan for
bands I use? Do I even get to elect the representative who does?

Didn't Carl attend the last ITU meeting? Didn't the ARRL attend?
Didn't the FCC attend?

How much representation do you need, Jim?

ITU and IARU aren't the same thing.

Or will the bandplans be decided upon by folks whom are even less beholden to
"the users" than the FCC?

Len did not count the comments of noncitizens to the FCC on 05-235 ....

To the extent that the band plan would not be dynamic on a minute-to-minute
schedule, you are correct. But it certainly be more dynamic and responsive that
the current generation-to-generation schedule of ?97.305.

A group would have to meet and reallocate as needed.

In the 1930's that certainly would have been an impediment. But 75 years later
in 2005, give me a list of 100 IARU representatives and within the next hour I
can establish a secure and private "meeting room" on the internet where they can
hold their allocation meetings, hammer out their agreements, and publish the
bandplan on a global basis before halftime of Monday Night Football.

And here's the problem:

Let me sit down and pour a stiff drink.

...and I slip a note to Hans suggesting he change the "hour" to "24
hours" to accommodate the international time zones of the IARU...

Suppose for a moment the IARU scheme is done by regionfor HF - after all,
that's how the allocations work. So IARU reps from all the Region 2 countries
decide how the Region 2 HF bandplan works.

Does each member country get one vote? If so, that puts the USA, with its
661,000+ amateurs, at the same voting level as a country with a few dozen
amateurs. A coalition of small countries with a handful of amateurs could
dictate the bandplan for whole region.

Oh, my. I hope that the US hams have treated "thier" neighbor hams
kindly.

If not, the USA's enormous amateur population makes us the
de-facto 800 pound gorilla in the region.

Can't we all just get along?

I can. Can't you?

In either case, the IARU member society for the USA is...the ARRL.

Which is why it's so important to keep movers and shakers like Carl out
of the organization's management.

God rest ye, league gentlemen, let nothing you dismay...

Guess who supported Carl's nomination? Tried to get the board,
executive
committee and everyone else to change their minds?

Hint: Someone who's an ARRL member and lives in the same division as
Carl.....

Do you think everyone will be glad the ARRL is the USA's representative
for determining bandplans?

It would be better if the IARU declared a plan rather than go with the
ARRL's recent bandplan scheme.

ARRL still doesn't "represent" any more than one in five U.S.
amateur radio licensees.

That's more than NCI represents - by an order of magnitude or more.

They barely made one in four a while
back. They've been nothing but a MINORITY representative
organization all along. ARRL has NEVER "represented" those who
might want to join amateur radio through licensing...they just
dictate to everyone what newcomers must think and do.

If the ARRL *truly* wanted to "represent" all U.S. radio amateurs,
they should quit going around with their familiar arrogant
posturing of "we know what is best for the rest of you."

Gee, Len, you have the same arrogant attitude, even though you've
never even been a radio amateur!

FCC of the futu "Here are your allocated bands, use all
allocated modes anywhere. No bandplans. Enjoy your options.
Try not to mess up comms of others and follow the technical
requirements."

That's really all that's needed for a HOBBY. Those who need
control, control, and compex fastidious little sub-band planning
should go to Dr. Phil or join a federal comms agency.

I see.

Gee, Len, you've told us over and over and over that you were only
interested
in getting rid of the Morse Code test. Now it seems there's a lot more
to you're agenda - only one class of license, less written testing, no
subbands-by-mode, no subbands-by-bandwidth, no bandplans.

Also no hams under the age of 14 years.

And you say the ARRL is "arrogant"!!!!

Since I've been told the FAA grants amateur radio licenses, not
the FCC, I may have to start writing the FAA. :-)

Well, Len, that was a typo I made. I wrote FCC when I meant to write
FAA.
My bad - just mistake.

Know why it sticks out so much? Because it's so unusual!

Now, about typos....

Was it a typo when you told K8MN to 'shut the hell up, you little USMC
feldwebel' ?

Was it a typo when you wrote, almost 6 years ago, that you were going
for Extra right out of the box?

Was it a typo when you lectured a US Coast Guard radio operator on his
military service
as a radio operator in the classic "sphincters post"?

Was it a typo when you wrote that all amateurs with
expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses
could legally operate their amateur radio stations?

Was it a typo when you accused the ARRL and some VEs of 'very mild
fraud' because of the
licensing of some young children? (You never presented any evidence of
fraud other than
the ages of the children)

Was it a typo when you twice accused a developer/contractor in your
area of 'payola' to
the zoning commission - and the commission accepting it?

Or are you just following your profile?