On Jul 30, 2:23?pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote:
What *should* be done, IMHO, is for amateur organizations to do the
legwork up-front. IOW,
I think the way to do a proposal is:
1) Gather up lots of opinions from the amateur community
2) Write a draft proposal
3) Present it to the amateur community, with clear explanation of what
is proposed and why.
4) Gather more opinions by means of surveys, polls, etc.
5) Rework the draft proposal based on the input received
6 Repeat steps 3 through 5 until a proposal gets a clear and
compelling majority of support from the amateur community, and the
opposition's points are dealt with.IOW, build a consensus *first*
7) Submit the proposal to FCC, including the survey/poll results.

I suspect that that's what the ARRL thinks they're doing now.

With all due respect, it may be what they think they are doing, but
it's not what they *are* doing.

For example, was the original "Regulation By Bandwidth" proposal shown
in QST and on the website where it could be seen by all? I don't
recall that - instead, I recall it being described, but not the whole
text given out.

Was there a questionaire of all ARRL members about the proposal
*before* it was sent to FCC?

Were the results of such research published, and the proposal modified
because of it?

The problem is that on any issue that's controversial, step 6 is going
to be tough, if not impossible. Think of how hard it is to get a
"compelling majority of support from the amateur community" on the issue
of what the code requirements should be for the various classes of license.

I think the biggest part of that difficulty is lack of clear
communications.

Imagine if there had been a detailed survey of all ARRL members, or
all US hams, on that very subject back in 2003 or so.

Imagine if the results of such a survey were made public, so that
everyone could see that X percent of US hams support Y amount of code-
testing for license class Z

Imagine if a proposal were crafted to follow that information, and the
information presented to FCC along with the proposal.

And imagine if there were creative options proposed on divisive
issues. For example, look at how Canada solved the Morse code test
issue. Why wasn't something like that proposed by ARRL? (I put it in
my comments, btw).

If all that were done, FCC would assign an RM number and then be
flooded with supportive comments. FCC could then easily rubber-stamp
approval of the proposal.

Contentious issues tend to split the amateur radio community into
segments that are unlikely to agree on any single proposal. No matter
what you end up with, there is going to be a significant fraction of the
fraternity that will file negative comments.

Of course. But having a significant fraction opposed is a lot better
than having a *majority* opposed!

For example, I have to wonder whether the regulation by bandwidth
proposal died because the ARRL didn't work hard enough for consensus, or
because the amateur radio community is simply opposed to any regulation
by bandwidth proposal. I honestly don't know; perhaps if ARRL had
worked harder for consensus, there would have been less negative
comments filed.

I think it's a combination of factors.

First off, the "RBB" proposal would have allowed data modes in the
'phone subbands. A lot of hams didn't like that, even though RBB also
widened those subbands.

What really ticked off a lot of folks was that RBB would have changed
the rules on "robot" data stations.

The kicker, IMHO, was that ARRL did not do the hard work to get the
support *before* submitting the proposal. All that did was galvanize
the opposition to action.

And it's not just an ARRL problem. Look at the "Communications Think
Tank" proposal, and how much opposition it generated! Made RBB look
popular by comparison.

Then there are the comments from the NON-ham-radio community. BPL, for
example . . . there are plenty of segments that will file comments
against whatever the ARRL might come up with. There's nothing that they
can do about that.

No, there isn't. But if you look at the various Part 97 RM and NPRM
comments that have come down the pipe in the past decade or two, the
vast majority are from already-licensed hams. It's really a rare event
when a nonham sends in comments.

But doing it that way takes a lot of grunt work, time, and effort.
Also takes compromise.

And without the compromise, the work, time, and effort go for naught. I
have not observed that hams, in general, are eager to compromise.

Well, we'll have to disagree about that. What I've seen is that people
in general and hams in particular are willing to compromise *if* what
is proposed is a true compromise - which means you give some and you
get some.

For example, consider again the RBB proposal. It offered the HF 'phone
op slightly wider subbands - and the possibility of having to deal
with wide data signals from robots all over those subbands! Not a good
compromise.

Or consider the CW op. RBB offered *narrower* subbands and the
possibility of robot QRM all over those narrower subbands! (Yes, I
know CW can legally be used anywhere, but how much actual real CW
operation goes on in the 'phone subbands?)

The end result was a coalition of "NO!"

Now suppose RBB had included things like a slice of CW-only space for
the CW ops, a slice of no-data space for the 'phone ops, and a slice
of "all modes" space for everybody. The result might have been very
different.

The big mistake ARRL (and CTT, and many others) make is that they
don't really know how popular their proposals are *before* submitting
them to FCC.

Whatever is the point of *any* amateur radio group submitting a Part
97 proposal that generates 70, 80, 90% negative comments? All that
does is annoy FCC, IMHO.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

Now suppose RBB had included things like a slice of CW-only space for
the CW ops, a slice of no-data space for the 'phone ops, and a slice
of "all modes" space for everybody. The result might have been very
different.

The big mistake ARRL (and CTT, and many others) make is that they
don't really know how popular their proposals are *before* submitting
them to FCC.

Whatever is the point of *any* amateur radio group submitting a Part
97 proposal that generates 70, 80, 90% negative comments? All that
does is annoy FCC, IMHO.


The way I see it is that indeed the proposal was a big mistake. The
folks who were all about the robot stations effectively took over the
process, and hoped to push things through with their agenda intact.

This is not an unusual thing. Many different groups see their own
interests as paramount to the "big picture" in Ham radio (though it
isn't exclusive to the ARS) I've sat through lectures from Emergency
Operation fans on how amateur radio MUST change to acommodate their
particular view. Pro contesters/anti contesters, the different folks
involved all have a vision of what the service needs to be.

In the case of the RBB, the big picture was circumvented, and the result
was predictable and hams did their job. Some people look at it as a
failure. I look at as a shining success. A bad idea was beat down.

Of course, after being chased around the bands by some of those stations
while trying to enjoy some psk31, I suppose that would be natural on my
part. ;^)


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Jul 31, 2:52 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:

The big mistake ARRL (and CTT, and many others) make is that they
don't really know how popular their proposals are *before* submitting
them to FCC.

Whatever is the point of *any* amateur radio group submitting a Part
97 proposal that generates 70, 80, 90% negative comments? All that
does is annoy FCC, IMHO.

The way I see it is that indeed the proposal was a big mistake. The
folks who were all about the robot stations effectively took over the
process, and hoped to push things through with their agenda intact.

I don't know if 'the folks who were all about the robot stations' took
over the process or not. But that doesn't matter.

What I do know is that there was a widespread *perception* that RBB
was "all about robots" and conducted behind closed doors. That
*perception* was pure poison when comment-time came around. It
galvanized so many hams into writing anti-RBB comments that the good
parts of the proposal were lost in the uproar.

The really sad thing is that the BoD, who OK'd the proposal, didn't
see all that ahead of time.

This is not an unusual thing. Many different groups see their own
interests as paramount to the "big picture" in Ham radio (though it
isn't exclusive to the ARS)

Of course.

And the way you get around that sort of resistance is to let all
groups have their say, and come up with proposals that give everybody
something of what they want.

I've sat through lectures from Emergency
Operation fans on how amateur radio MUST change to acommodate their
particular view. Pro contesters/anti contesters, the different folks
involved all have a vision of what the service needs to be.

Sure. And they're almost all right! The trick is to make room for
everyone.

For example, I think WinLink/Pactor/robots are a great thing in
Amateur Radio. I think many of our rules on them are outdated and in
need of rewriting. I even think the "no-data-in-the-phone-bands" rule
has to go.

But at the same time, I do not think that simply allowing robot
operation everywhere is a good thing. That's why I opposed both RBB
and CTT.

In the case of the RBB, the big picture was circumvented, and the result
was predictable and hams did their job. Some people look at it as a
failure. I look at as a shining success. A bad idea was beat down.

It was a failure in my view because:

1) A lot of good ideas in RBB were beat down too
2) The beat-down of the bad ideas should have happened *before* it was
ever sent to FCC, not after.
3) The proposal asked a lot of hams to give something up, without
giving them anything in return, or not enough in return. Meanwhile,
other hams would gain something without giving anything up. Or at
least it seemed that way to many hams.

This is why proposals like RBB and CTT go nowhere, IMHO.

Suppose somebody came up with a composite mode that combined SSB voice
and a PSK31-like data mode in a bandwidth of less than 3 kHz. I think
that would be a good thing for Amateur Radio, and under RBB it would
be legal. Under current rules it's not allowed on US HF amateur radio,
though, and with the mess created by RBB and CTT, it won't be for many
years to come.

IMHO, one of the reasons it takes *years* for FCC to make even simple
changes to Part 97 (like dumping the code test) is because we USA hams
don't get our act together before sending proposals to FCC.

Look at how Canada handled the code test thing. They sent out surveys,
got ideas, and put together an innovative plan that generated
consensus among VE hams. Only when they could point to hard numbers
about how much widespread support their was for their proposal did
they send it to Industry Canada.

And Industry Canada put the change in place with little hassle. The
whole process was a done deal long before the USA got around to
changing Part 97, and IMHO the Canadian change generated less
animosity among VE hams than the USA process did here.


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:52 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:

The big mistake ARRL (and CTT, and many others) make is that they
don't really know how popular their proposals are *before* submitting
them to FCC.
Whatever is the point of *any* amateur radio group submitting a Part
97 proposal that generates 70, 80, 90% negative comments? All that
does is annoy FCC, IMHO.
The way I see it is that indeed the proposal was a big mistake. The
folks who were all about the robot stations effectively took over the
process, and hoped to push things through with their agenda intact.

I don't know if 'the folks who were all about the robot stations' took
over the process or not. But that doesn't matter.

I disagree. I believe it matters very much.

What I do know is that there was a widespread *perception* that RBB
was "all about robots" and conducted behind closed doors. That
*perception* was pure poison when comment-time came around. It
galvanized so many hams into writing anti-RBB comments that the good
parts of the proposal were lost in the uproar.

A very wise man once told me that if enough people have a perception of
something, it doesn't matter what the truth is, the perception becomes
the truth. And as hard as that may be to swallow, it is just how things are.


The really sad thing is that the BoD, who OK'd the proposal, didn't
see all that ahead of time.


This is not an unusual thing. Many different groups see their own
interests as paramount to the "big picture" in Ham radio (though it
isn't exclusive to the ARS)

Of course.

And the way you get around that sort of resistance is to let all
groups have their say, and come up with proposals that give everybody
something of what they want.

I've sat through lectures from Emergency
Operation fans on how amateur radio MUST change to acommodate their
particular view. Pro contesters/anti contesters, the different folks
involved all have a vision of what the service needs to be.

Sure. And they're almost all right! The trick is to make room for
everyone.

Actually I'm not so sure about everyone being right. My experience has
been that people who are intensely interested in one thing or the other
don't believe that others needs are of sufficient interest. Which is why
it is important that any BOD is interested in the big picture.

For example, I think WinLink/Pactor/robots are a great thing in
Amateur Radio. I think many of our rules on them are outdated and in
need of rewriting. I even think the "no-data-in-the-phone-bands" rule
has to go.

I think that the stations have to become a whole lot better behaved
before they are allowed anywhere. The business of just opening up
whenever and wherever is bad stuff.

But at the same time, I do not think that simply allowing robot
operation everywhere is a good thing. That's why I opposed both RBB
and CTT.

As a person chased off the air (or at least to another frequency) by
the machines, I couldn't agree more. There has been a lot of discussion
re the PSK31 "segment", with a lot of people telling us to "just move".
Yeah, I guess we could. The nature of PSK31 is such that making it's
practitioners fly all over the band in search of a free spot is a great
way to kill it. especially for those who use the rockbound radios. A lot
of the PSK units are just a rockbound transceiver tied to a laptop. It
got bad enough that at least in the Digipan PSK software, the programmer
put in receive only for the robots so that we could ID them and complain
to the F.C.C. All that fuss over 1 3KHz piece of the band!


In the case of the RBB, the big picture was circumvented, and the result
was predictable and hams did their job. Some people look at it as a
failure. I look at as a shining success. A bad idea was beat down.

It was a failure in my view because:

1) A lot of good ideas in RBB were beat down too
2) The beat-down of the bad ideas should have happened *before* it was
ever sent to FCC, not after.
3) The proposal asked a lot of hams to give something up, without
giving them anything in return, or not enough in return. Meanwhile,
other hams would gain something without giving anything up. Or at
least it seemed that way to many hams.

This is why proposals like RBB and CTT go nowhere, IMHO.

And that is why I consider it a good thing. I agree with you that ideas
should be tested out before submission.

I really strongly believe that when special interest subgroups get hold
of the process, they invariably subvert it to their interest. While
there may have been good ideas in RBB, the bad ones were bad enough that
it was worth losing the whole thing. Hopefully the BOD paid attention
to that fact.

Suppose somebody came up with a composite mode that combined SSB voice
and a PSK31-like data mode in a bandwidth of less than 3 kHz. I think
that would be a good thing for Amateur Radio, and under RBB it would
be legal. Under current rules it's not allowed on US HF amateur radio,
though, and with the mess created by RBB and CTT, it won't be for many
years to come.



IMHO, one of the reasons it takes *years* for FCC to make even simple
changes to Part 97 (like dumping the code test) is because we USA hams
don't get our act together before sending proposals to FCC.

Look at how Canada handled the code test thing. They sent out surveys,
got ideas, and put together an innovative plan that generated
consensus among VE hams. Only when they could point to hard numbers
about how much widespread support their was for their proposal did
they send it to Industry Canada.

And Industry Canada put the change in place with little hassle. The
whole process was a done deal long before the USA got around to
changing Part 97, and IMHO the Canadian change generated less
animosity among VE hams than the USA process did here.


We can do it also. At least in principle. Practice will be a lot
harder, as I suspect that we might be a little more of a contentious lot
than our VE brethren.


- 73 de mike KB3EIA -

On Aug 3, 3:44?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:52 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:

I don't know if 'the folks who were all
about the robot stations' took
over the process or not. But that doesn't matter.

I disagree. I believe it matters very much.

See below about the very wise man you quoted.

What I do know is that there was a
widespread *perception* that RBB
was "all about robots" and conducted
behind closed doors. That
*perception* was pure poison when
comment-time came around. It
galvanized so many hams into writing
anti-RBB comments that the good
parts of the proposal were lost in the uproar.

A very wise man once told me that if
enough people have a perception of
something, it doesn't matter what the
truth is, the perception becomes
the truth. And as hard as that may be
to swallow, it is just how things are.

I would say that the perception is what drives people's actions, not
that the perception is the truth.

Most of all, what happens in those cases is
that the perception matters more than the truth.
That's what I meant by "It doesn't matter" whether
the folks who are all about robots took drove RBB
or not.

The really sad thing is that the BoD, who
OK'd the proposal, didn't
see all that ahead of time.

This is not an unusual thing.

Sad but true - in many things.

Many different groups see their own
interests as paramount to the "big picture"
in Ham radio (though it
isn't exclusive to the ARS)

It certainly isn't!

And the way you get around that sort
of resistance is to let all
groups have their say, and come up
with proposals that give everybody
something of what they want.

I've sat through lectures from Emergency
Operation fans on how amateur radio MUST
change to acommodate their
particular view. Pro contesters/anti contesters,
the different folks
involved all have a vision of what the service
needs to be.

Sure. And they're almost all right!
The trick is to make room for
everyone.

Actually I'm not so sure about
everyone being right.

Everyone isn't right. That's why I wrote
"almost".

My experience has
been that people who are intensely
interested in one thing or the other
don't believe that others needs are of sufficient interest.

Sometimes.

Which is why
it is important that any BOD is
interested in the big picture.

The trouble is that almost every specialized
interest will say *they* are the big picture!

For example, I think WinLink/Pactor/robots
are a great thing in
Amateur Radio. I think many of our rules
on them are outdated and in
need of rewriting. I even think the
"no-data-in-the-phone-bands" rule
has to go.

I think that the stations have to become
a whole lot better behaved
before they are allowed anywhere.

I'm not proposing that they be allowed everywhere.

The business of just opening up
whenever and wherever is bad stuff.

But at the same time, I do not think
that simply allowing robot
operation everywhere is a good thing.
That's why I opposed both RBB
and CTT.

As a person chased off the air (or at
least to another frequency) by
the machines, I couldn't agree more.
There has been a lot of discussion
re the PSK31 "segment", with a lot
of people telling us to "just move".
Yeah, I guess we could. The nature
of PSK31 is such that making it's
practitioners fly all over the band in
search of a free spot is a great
way to kill it. especially for those who
use the rockbound radios. A lot
of the PSK units are just a rockbound
transceiver tied to a laptop.

Which is the beauty of the mode: that it
can give such good results without an
elaborate setup.

Unless I am mistaken, a ham could take
an old computer that's useless for almost
everything else and get on PSK31 with it
and a radio that costs under $100.

It
got bad enough that at least in the
Digipan PSK software, the programmer
put in receive only for the robots so that
we could ID them and complain
to the F.C.C.

Has anyone done that? Such complaints
should also go to the ARRL BoD and the
committee that wrote RBB as well, IMHO

All that fuss over 1 3KHz piece of the band!

Yep.

It was a failure in my view because:

1) A lot of good ideas in RBB were beat down too
2) The beat-down of the bad ideas should have
happened *before* it was
ever sent to FCC, not after.
3) The proposal asked a lot of hams to give
something up, without
giving them anything in return, or not
enough in return. Meanwhile,
other hams would gain something without
giving anything up. Or at
least it seemed that way to many hams.

This is why proposals like RBB and CTT go
nowhere, IMHO.

And that is why I consider it a good thing.
I agree with you that ideas
should be tested out before submission.

I think the submission of proposals that
fail miserably damages the credibility
of the submitting organization. That's
particularly true if the organization says
they represent the amateur community, or
a large part of it. If an organization cannot
motivate its membership to produce a
large number of supporting comments, it
tells FCC that the organization doesn't
really know what its members want.

I really strongly believe that when
special interest subgroups get hold
of the process, they invariably subvert
it to their interest.

I disagree. But I do agree that it's
very possible for them to do so.

While
there may have been good ideas
in RBB, the bad ones were bad enough that
it was worth losing the whole thing.

I agree. But I think a proposal could
have been developed that kept the
good ideas and lost the bad ones.

Hopefully the BOD paid attention
to that fact.

Hopefully.

IMHO, one of the reasons it takes
*years* for FCC to make even simple
changes to Part 97 (like dumping the code
test) is because we USA hams
don't get our act together before
sending proposals to FCC.

Look at how Canada handled the code test thing.

We can do it also. At least in principle.

I hope so.

Practice will be a lot
harder, as I suspect that
we might be a little more of a contentious lot
than our VE brethren.

Maybe. But I think if US hams are approached
in a reasonable way, they will be reasonable.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in news:1186230945.022473.52800
@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com:

On Aug 3, 3:44?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 31, 2:52 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:

I don't know if 'the folks who were all
about the robot stations' took
over the process or not. But that doesn't matter.

I disagree. I believe it matters very much.

See below about the very wise man you quoted.

What I do know is that there was a
widespread *perception* that RBB
was "all about robots" and conducted
behind closed doors. That
*perception* was pure poison when
comment-time came around. It
galvanized so many hams into writing
anti-RBB comments that the good
parts of the proposal were lost in the uproar.

A very wise man once told me that if
enough people have a perception of
something, it doesn't matter what the
truth is, the perception becomes
the truth. And as hard as that may be
to swallow, it is just how things are.

I would say that the perception is what drives people's actions, not
that the perception is the truth.

His point was that in the end, there is no difference.

Most of all, what happens in those cases is
that the perception matters more than the truth.
That's what I meant by "It doesn't matter" whether
the folks who are all about robots took drove RBB
or not.

The really sad thing is that the BoD, who
OK'd the proposal, didn't
see all that ahead of time.

This is not an unusual thing.

Sad but true - in many things.

Many different groups see their own
interests as paramount to the "big picture"
in Ham radio (though it
isn't exclusive to the ARS)

It certainly isn't!

And the way you get around that sort
of resistance is to let all
groups have their say, and come up
with proposals that give everybody
something of what they want.

I've sat through lectures from Emergency
Operation fans on how amateur radio MUST
change to acommodate their
particular view. Pro contesters/anti contesters,
the different folks
involved all have a vision of what the service
needs to be.

Sure. And they're almost all right!
The trick is to make room for
everyone.

Actually I'm not so sure about
everyone being right.

Everyone isn't right. That's why I wrote
"almost".

My experience has
been that people who are intensely
interested in one thing or the other
don't believe that others needs are of sufficient interest.

Sometimes.

Which is why
it is important that any BOD is
interested in the big picture.

The trouble is that almost every specialized
interest will say *they* are the big picture!

For example, I think WinLink/Pactor/robots
are a great thing in
Amateur Radio. I think many of our rules
on them are outdated and in
need of rewriting. I even think the
"no-data-in-the-phone-bands" rule
has to go.

I think that the stations have to become
a whole lot better behaved
before they are allowed anywhere.

I'm not proposing that they be allowed everywhere.

The business of just opening up
whenever and wherever is bad stuff.

But at the same time, I do not think
that simply allowing robot
operation everywhere is a good thing.
That's why I opposed both RBB
and CTT.

As a person chased off the air (or at
least to another frequency) by
the machines, I couldn't agree more.
There has been a lot of discussion
re the PSK31 "segment", with a lot
of people telling us to "just move".
Yeah, I guess we could. The nature
of PSK31 is such that making it's
practitioners fly all over the band in
search of a free spot is a great
way to kill it. especially for those who
use the rockbound radios. A lot
of the PSK units are just a rockbound
transceiver tied to a laptop.

Which is the beauty of the mode: that it
can give such good results without an
elaborate setup.

Unless I am mistaken, a ham could take
an old computer that's useless for almost
everything else and get on PSK31 with it
and a radio that costs under $100.

It
got bad enough that at least in the
Digipan PSK software, the programmer
put in receive only for the robots so that
we could ID them and complain
to the F.C.C.

Has anyone done that? Such complaints
should also go to the ARRL BoD and the
committee that wrote RBB as well, IMHO

I believe that some have - but am not 100 percent sure. The PSK
community was fairly loud about their plans to ID and complain. The
interference has lessened as of late. I suspect just the threat of
complaints helped a lot.

The technology and users ot it are not bad, but the implementation is.


snip

I think the submission of proposals that
fail miserably damages the credibility
of the submitting organization. That's
particularly true if the organization says
they represent the amateur community, or
a large part of it. If an organization cannot
motivate its membership to produce a
large number of supporting comments, it
tells FCC that the organization doesn't
really know what its members want.

Spot-on


I really strongly believe that when
special interest subgroups get hold
of the process, they invariably subvert
it to their interest.

I disagree. But I do agree that it's
very possible for them to do so.

Well, perhaps I should rephrase that in every instance that I have
dealt with SIG's, that has been the case. THat would be several dozen
occasions.


While
there may have been good ideas
in RBB, the bad ones were bad enough that
it was worth losing the whole thing.

I agree. But I think a proposal could
have been developed that kept the
good ideas and lost the bad ones.

Incrementalism often rules.

-73 de Mike KB3EIA -