From: estey@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: ARRL Plan - The next step?
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:18:03 GMT
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center


In a recent article Steve Wolf  writes:
> IF YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE DIGITAL COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS:  Please
> DO consider doing something other than complaining.

Good point.  But now the issue has escallated to DO WE SUPPORT THE ARRL
PROPOSAL FOR RULEMAKING.  Unfortunately we probably won't get to see this
document until after it is voted on by the ARRL Executive Committee several
months from now.  The issue is now only the final wording not scope or 
general content.

> The reasoning was due to their dislike for HF packet. It was obvious that were
> it in their jurisdiction, they would have recommended banning HF packet all 
> together.

The banning of packet is still a REAL danger that we need to be alert for in 
the final wording of the proposal that ARRL will send to FCC.  One observer
at the July 17th BOD meeting believes that the proposal will address 
technical standards.  It would not be unrealistic to see the proposal include
a maximum bandwidth for digital emissions below 29.7 Mhz.  If this limit was, 
say 600 hz, this could eliminate ALL packet operation on HF - attended or not!

>     This will likely force both AD8I and WA8BXN to abandon HF forwarding. 
> My discussions with other STAed Sysops indicate that they will also
> abandon support of the HF nets.
>  

All that I have talked to have indicated they will cease operation when the
STA expires unless rule changes permit unattended automatic operation.  This
comes from "big guns" like W3IWI who handle 10 to 12,000 messages per month
all the way down to little "pip squeeks" in Minnesota (WD0GNK - the Rochester
IBM Club and myself).  None of us will operate in an "attended" mode - we can't!

> Concern has been expressed in three areas.
>  
>      The first is with the possibility of loosing sensitive,
> important ARRL floods.  We will support the flooding of these important ARRL 
> bulletins.
>  
>      The second is that we would only hurt the users.  Very few
> ARRL bulletins are seen as "important" information.  Look over the
> ones you have.  You would have to agree that most are ticklers for
> future QST articles that will tell more about a subject.
>  
>      The last is the concern that working within the system has not
> been tried.  Mike, WA8BXN, Dave, WB8APD and I met with Al, AB8P,
> our ARRL Great Lakes Division Director and Dave, N8AUH, our Ohio
> Section Manager.  Our meeting ended with Al expressing his desire
> to see some form of automated forwarding be included in any
> rulemaking.  He went to Newington supporting us.  From what I have
> learned through messages to other parts of the country, there was
> one other Director on our side and another who was willing to
> consider our needs.  That was not enough.  We have indeed tried the
> system.
>  

When I talked to Dakota Division Howard Mark he committed to trying to either 
send the report back to the Digital Committee or tabling it until inputs from 
more of the members in his Division could get the proposal and provide him 
with input.

Howard was one of ten who voted FOR accepting the report and recommendations.
Obviously, the pre-meeting on Tuesday before the BOD meeting turned his head.
So it seems that smoke-filled backroom politics is back.

>      This has all the appearances of being a "done-deal".  Sysops
> have not made their position known.  

*  ARRL managed the situation to allow insufficient time to review the report
   before the BOD was to act.  

*  ARRL failed to solicit input directly from the STA participants.  

*  ARRL failed to acknowledge in the Digital Committee report the information 
   supplied to them by the STA participants in November and December 1987
   concerning what we learned about operating unattended. The ARRL must
   have been confident about that info because they passed it on to the FCC
   in their request for STA extension!

*  ARRL has failed to adequately and fairly represent the entire Amateur Radio 
   Digital Community.  

>      Do you approve of the Digital Committee's ban?  If you do not
> agree, why do you sit and do nothing?  Help us, please!


There are other options ........

1.  A counter proposal from the STA participants could be submitted to FCC.  
This cannot be prepared until the ARRL proposal is acted on by the ARRL 
Executive Committee - best guess is 2 months from now.

2.  We can wait for the FCC to announce a comment time and organize a "grass-
roots" effort to provide a huge amounts of constructive comments.

This is called working within the system - and something even ARRL must now do!

73
Carl
______________________________________________________________________________
Carl Estey                  |  Home Mail Address: 276 Walnut Lane
Amateur Callsign:    WA0CQG |                     Apple Valley, MN 55124
                            |  Business Address:  Honeywell Inc.
Phone: Work (612) 542-5136  |  Flight Systems & Test Operations M/S MN15-2370
       FAX  (612) 542-6003  |  1625 Zarthan Ave. S., St. Louis Park, MN 55416
       Home (612) 432-0699  |  Packet: WA0CQG @ WA0CQG.#SOMSP.MN.USA.NA   
The nonsense here is of my own making - no one else would want credit!
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy