[Fists] Maxwell's Reply; re: Novice Bands

[Jim Reid]

Recall,  yesterday I sent my opinions about the
"refarming" of the Novice bands to the Pacific
Division Director,  Jim Maxwell.  He has replied,
and for the most part,  does not accept my views.
A couple of quotes for illustration:

1.  I didn't add correctly; I had said 125 kHz was proposed for
reallocation.  Jim corrected, " The proposal is to convert 100 kHz
of CW/digital subbands to phone use, not 125 lHz.  This breaks
down to 50 on 80, 25 on 40, and 25 on 15."

2. I had written that there was no majority for the committee's
proposed formula of reallocation,  Jim replied:  

"Unfortunately, the figures published in the bulletin don't tell the
whole story.  You're correct that about 60% were not in favor
of the option selected by the committee.  But you need to
look at the other choices and their results to get the full picture.

1.  No change - 23%
2.  Phone expands to 3725 - 31.4%
3.  Phone expands to 3700 - 39.7%

In other words, 71.1% wanted some expansion; the
only real issue was how much.  Note that the 
percentages add up to 94.1%.  5.9% didn't respond
to the question.

At any rate, with 71.1% wanting some form of
expansion, the committee decision was to go with 
the choice with the most votes.  It was a majority
of those expressing a choice.

On 40 meters, 72.5 percent wanted expansion.  Expansion to 
7125 was the most popular choice.  Again a majority choice 
of those voting.

On 15 meters,  Same story, but it was close.  45.6% wanted 
no change to the phone band, 48.7% did.  5.7% expressed no
opinion.  If you still disagree with this close decision, I'll
consider that when the discussion comes up next week."

3.  On the preservation of amateur radio as a "hi tech"
service, and that should attract the computer loving
young folks,  summary comment was:

"I agree that digital moves are one of the big waves of
the future, but I'm not sure that this proposed 
reallocation will hinder the development of digital modes.
If it does, then some adjustments will have to be made
downstream."

4.  And  my  comments about the enforcement
problems being largely with some SSB operators,  Jim
replied (and this has some subtle implication IMO!):

"Well, I agree with part - it's clearly true that a majority
of Riley's actions involve phone ops.  On the other hand,
we have plenty of problems on CW.  It's also an unfortunate
fact that most of our OOs these days concentrate on phone, 
because that's the only mode many of them can handle.  I 
think we could use some more highly motivated Extras to 
work at cleaning up on CW."

Plenty of problems on CW?  Examples  are....

Solution,  if the OO's nor anyone in government are unable to
monitor CW anymore......then maybe CW should be
banned,  as has occurred by government direction to
MARS operators-- no CW AT ALL!  I do not like the
drift of that thought!

5.  Dilution/misappropriation of ARRL effort from more 
important issues, the reply:

"I don't understand the "misappropriate" comment, for the fiscal
impact of this change has been close to zero.  As for CC&Rs,
the League continues to hammer away at that rock, a rock
that has resisted all efforts to crack it so far.  The next big
effort will likely go through Congress, because efforts to work
with the FCC have failed."

I asked him to not vote for the committee recommendation;
he thanked my for my comments without response.  Guess
I believe I know how Jim is going to vote on "refarming".

73,  Jim  KH7M