CCW N4AOX wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

"Acting on the premise that the amateur bands must flexibly and
comfortably accommodate present and future operating modes and
technologies over the long haul, the ARRL Executive Committee has
reached consensus on recommendations to the ARRL Board of Directors for
a regulation-by-bandwidth proposal. Meeting April 9 in Denver, the
panel adopted recommendations that will form the basis of a draft ARRL
petition to the FCC seeking to govern the usage of amateur spectrum by
emission bandwidth rather than by mode. The proposals remain only EC
recommendations at this point . . . "

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1

- - - - - - -

This nonsense needs to be killed FAST and killed NOW. It represents
gross overregulation. It's HQ trying to fix a system which isn't
broken. Again. It's time to rise up against it en masse.

w3rv



I would like to see a comprehensive discussion of this proposed rule making
without it degenerating into name calling. This could revitalize a
newsgroup that is overdue for getting back on subject, that is, policy.

So far, I have four comments:

1. What experience and expertise do seven or eight old men (ARRL EC) in
Newington have, to qualify to make policy for the conduct of Amateur HF
operations?

Whoops! Clay, I like the idea of a non-name calling thread, so we
should probably drop the "old men" pejorative.




Let's see their operating logs or other evidence for the past
year where they have made 5 contacts per week avg. in the
CW/Data/AutoData/Voice intersection areas in the subject bands they are
including in their proposal. OK, let's make it easy, just show logs for
just SWLing those areas for 2 1/2 hrs per week. If they cannot produce,
then they should be excused from making policy on such far-reaching
implications.

2. While it may appear to be "overregulating" as someone pointed out, I take
the opposite view. K1ZZ says "Oh, bandwidth is too hard to define, let
alone measure, so lets just "say" we are going to restrict AutoDATA to 3.5
KHz and Semi-Auto DATA to 500 Hz, but we won't require measurement for
verification.

It would seem to me that we might find a space for these modes via the
bandplan, same as we have in the past.

I think that making unenforceable rules such as "saying things" is the
breeding ground of disrespect.


First of all, does anyone have a copy of the current rules and regs for
AutoDATA and Semi-AutoDATA operation on HF? I've been away a while, so
someone please point me to that in the Part 97. Let's get that established
first. For instance do those stations have to identify in CW or Voice(AM or
SSB) at any time? So how about some clear rules and regs for conduct of the
Auto and Semi-Auto stations.

dunno...

Second, if they are going to refarm on "bandwidth", should not
"bandwidth" be redefined to a quantifiable measure? K1ZZ claims that
bandwidth is not necessary to measure, that it will be self-regulating.
Yeah, sure wink, wink!

Agreed. How on earth would someone be in violation of something not
defined? No definition, no rules breaking.


This works on voice HF where you can tune over to
the offending frequency and say "QLF", "QSY or QRT". Have you ever tried to
tell an unidentifiable robot station that it is running too broad a signal?
It is almost as difficult as telling K1MAN to QSY.;-)

Yup!


Everyone knows that
there is always great pressure to open up the bandwidth and increase
throughput on DATA. Soon you will soon find the HF AutoDATA's going to 16
KHz and Semi-AutoDATA's going to 3.5 KHz. If you ever do catch up with the
offender their retort would be: "But, hey, bandwidth is ill-defined, and I
don't have to measure it, so sue me!"

3. Am I prejudiced? Yes! My experience, living with AutoDATA's operating
in the 7.100 to 7.105 MHz for a few years was this: While I am trying to
work new novices and give them a new contact, in the only part of the novice
band not savaged by Foreign Broadcast, while gearing down to 5-10WPM, these
Auto Cowboys would fire up on our QSO. If you called CQ on "their"
frequency, they would turn you in to the FCC.

Same on PSK31. I've seen those puppies fire up right over top of us,
and wreck the whole segment. Since the nature of PSK31 is such that
QSY'ing isn't as convenient as for SSB or CW, we just shut down or
change bands.

Their idea of "sharing" in
the HF band was about the same as K1MAN's or W1AW's idea of sharing their
bulletin frequencies.

Now that you mention it, W1AW's Morse practice sessions on 80 meters
wreck psk31 too. Most of the time, Morse and PSK coexist pretty well,
but their signa has some nasty looking spurs on it that cover the whole
segment.


So, in effect, is the ARRL EC campaigning to give the
Auto Cowboys their exclusive non-sharable subbands throughout the HF
spectrum? Take a look at K1ZZ's chart and add up the total AutoDATA
bandwidth across the HF spectrum. Now will we have the Semi-AutoDATA
operations spreading out from there? Hmmmmm!

4. Lest I be labeled a Luddite, I think that a robust Amateur HF Data
Network across the nation, managed by dedicated Hams, could be the
center-piece for revitalizing or defending our reason to exist as a service
in the public interest. However, such operations as SemiAuto and AutoDATA
need to be regulated in proportion to their inherent liability to wreak
havoc and do damage to current operations if unchecked.

Well put.

- Mike KB3EIA -