[Fists] Contact the ARRL

Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:04:27 -0600

Jeff,

Thank you for your post to the FISTS reflector. I'm sure there will be
comments from some that complain that this discussion is not germane to the
FISTS list. They are wrong. These were probably the same people who let
restructuring go through without taking the time to write the League and the
FCC.

Below is the letter that I sent to Dick Isely, W9GIG who is Central Division
director of the ARRL.

73 de Mike, N9BOR
FISTS MAC SMC ZUT
http://www.qsl.net/n9bor
MAC http://www.qsl.net/mac

di dah dit - The only Roger Beep you'll ever need.
My designated driver is a 12BY7A.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike D. [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:40 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bruce Boston;
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Novice Survey results
>
>
> Dick,
>
> The results of the Novice Survey came as no surprise to me. I
> believe the survey was tainted by its form. The survey's preamble
> pointed the respondent to the committee's desired outcome. If the
> League uses the results of this "survey" to file a Petition with
> the FCC, it will not represent the consensus that the FCC was
> looking for. It will merely represent what the
> League proposed in July of 1998 (125 kHz Phone subband expansion)
> before taking this, most recent, survey.
>
> A number of NTS training nets meet within the frequencies
> suggested for reallocation. The number of stations checking into
> NTS training nets is higher than it was just 18 months ago. That
> includes a lot of new hams. The Illinois Training Net has seen a
> dramatic increase in participation. Metro Amateur Radio Club (an
> ARRL affiliated club with 100-members) operates a
> slow speed code net on 7.138 MHz. The River Valley Slow Speed Net
> also meets on this frequency. There simply isn't enough
> CW/Digital subband to move these nets, along with the existing
> hams (of all license classes) who use these frequencies. If these
> nets were forced to go lower in the band they would be competing
> with higher power stations, and Canadian phone nets.
>
> In a Dave Sumner editorial, he talked about taking a plane trip
> and discussing amateur radio with an EE who sat next to him. Dave
> lamented about how the engineer perceived hams who operate with
> antiquated analog SSB technology. Dave's intention was to promote
> hi-tech modes to radio amateurs. The number of hams who use sound
> card digital modes increase every day. Amateur
> radio needs to allow for this expansion and encourage technically
> savvy computer enthusiasts (i.e., young people) to join our
> ranks. Reallocating CW/digital subbands to phone will only hinder
> our progress.
>
> I know you are not an active CW/digital operator, but surely you
> see the merit in maintaining a technology-driven service. The
> miscreant operators Riley Hollingsworth decries, exclusively
> operate voice modes. These are also the modes most easily
> intercepted by public officials, watchdog groups and SWLs. The
> public's perception of amateur radio will not improve if we
> encourage non-technical phone discussions on 75-meters. The phone
> allocations are the biggest source of enforcement actions.
>
> Amateur radio needs to remain a hi-tech service. We must justify
> our existence to those public officials and bureaucrats who favor
> selling off our spectrum for the "greater good." Don't let the
> League misappropriate its limited resources when it should be
> concentrating on things like CC & Rs and Spectrum Protection.
> Please do not vote to expand phone subbands "to the detriment" of
> hi-tech CW/digital operation. Please do not vote for the
> expansion of phone allocations even if you think others will vote
> that way. You are my representative with the League. Vote for me
> and for the long term good of
> the service.
>
> 73 de Mike, N9BOR
> ARRL Life Member
> http://www.qsl.net/n9bor
> MAC http://www.qsl.net/mac