[CTSARA] FW: {Disarmed} Reply from Congressman James Himes

[Jon Perelstein]

Well let's face it -- the response Jon Shapiro got was worded the way it was
because it's considered inappropriate for congresscritters to actually say
to their constituents "I don't give a damn what you think".   Himes, like
most congresscritters, probably doesn't have the foggiest notion of what
this bill is all about.  He's simply been told by the House leadership that
he should vote for it because corporate interests need that bandwidth to
replace the bandwidth being taken away in the 700 MHz segment for use by
emergency services.

Congress is certainly not going to let 5,000 hams and about 100 little-used
repeaters in the whole country stand in the way of their re-allocating
420-440 to the commercial interests.  Especially not when each of the bill's
major backers (on both sides of the aisle) stands to make $1-$2 million if
the bill goes through (all perfectly legal and above-board, by the way).
 Given his low rank in the pecking order, Himes himself may not be in line
to be one of the beneficiaries on this bill, but at this point he's been in
Washington long enough to know that if he doesn't play along on a bill like
this, he won't ever be in line to be one of the beneficiaries on a bill like
this.

How many repeaters do you know of that are located in the 420-440 segment of
the band?  Hint, the ARRL band plan does not provide for any repeaters in
that segment of the band.  It's all TV, EME/satellite, and some SSB/CW and
only a very small percent of hams have ever operated up there.  A couple of
years ago, CQ magazine estimated that there might not be more than 5000
people playing with the technologies that are represented in the 420-440
segment.  It would be a bad mistake (which the ARRL is making) to think that
someone hasn't already informed Congressman King of that fact.

Hams haven't helped themselves with some of the silly claims they've made
either.  For a brief period, the ARRL was trumpeting how -- in an emergency
-- loss of 420-440MHz could impact "... areas of the West that constitute
1/4 of the nation's population ...".  That was based on a claim by the High
Desert Repeater Association, which runs a chain of repeaters through
northern California, eastern Oregon and eastern Washington State, Montana,
Idaho, and northwestern Nevada.  They were literally claiming that their
linked repeater network would be the only way to get messages passed
throughout the western 1/3rd of the country (I guess the invention of HF
hasn't reached those places yet).  Just a few little problems with their
claim:

1.  The population of the entire area covered by those repeaters is less
than the population of Connecticut.  And that's only if you count the "big
cities" like Spokane, Butte, Boise, etc. (none of which is actually served
by that repeater network).

2.  Out of all the repeaters and all the repeater links in their network,
only one was in the 420-440Mhz range, and that was a simplex link between a
repeater in South Bumtruck ID (population 41) to a repeater in West Snowshoe
MT (population 117 when the moose are mating).  As Congressman King pointed
out, what the lobbyists spend on one lunch for him would more than cover the
cost of buying a slightly smaller blanket so that the smoke signals would
resonate in the 440-450 part of the band instead of the 420-440 segment.

Another ham created a letter generator.  Just enter your name, address, call
and it would generate an automatic letter.  Only one problem -- the letter
protested the reallocation of the 440-450 segment of the band, but that
segment isn't up for reallocation.  It's pretty stupid to send a letter to a
congresscritter complaining about something that isn't happening, but that's
exactly what was happening.

We as hams haven't used that portion of the band, and we haven't made it a
key to our operations..  There are other ham bands that are equally ignored
(e.g., 220) and if we don't start using them, we will wind up losing them.

Jon

> Subject: FW: {Disarmed} Reply from Congressman James Himes
> >
> >
> > I wrote to Rep Himes regarding the 440 MhZ band allocation. As ARRL
> > requested us to do. I find the response somewhat generic, and does
> > not answer my concerns.>
> >
>