[Fists] FISTS Update

[nancy at tir.com]

Hi FISTS,

The ARRL is withdrawing their RM11306 petition.

I think this is a good decision, not because the idea behind it is flawed
but because it needs more re-tuning and more specific protection for
narrow-band transmissions like Morse code. This will give them a chance to
rewrite it and hopefully it will more accurately reflect the wishes of the
majority of hams. 

The withdrawal notice appears on the ARRL web page and is copied here at
the end of the newsletter. Thank you to all the FISTS who brought the
"error" to the ARRL's attention and let them know how they feel about
protecting the CW segments!

Also thanks to those who kept me posted and sent me copies of their
letters. I really appreciate it, it was a big help!

SUMMER SPRINT MOVES TO FRIDAY

The members have spoken and we're going to move the Summer Sprint ONLY to
the 2nd Friday of July. We had a couple people object because they
couldn't participate due to family obligations, but the majority thought it
was worth a try. 

This may open the Sprint to a new group as well as most of the "regulars". 
Not to mention that we will have a decent chance of making contacts and not
have to compete with the worldwide IARU contest QRM. Since it will be in
the evening, 20 meters probably won't be very good, but it will give a
chance for those who can only get on 40 and 80 an opportunity to get a good
score, too. 

Timing is tricky - we don't want the East coasters to have to stay up past
midnight, but it has to start late enough for the West coasters to get home
from work for most of it. So, we decided on 8PM-midnight Friday night
Eastern Daylight. That would make it 5-9PM for West coast, which should be
a decent compromise. 

The votes for the Code Proficiency program haven't been all tabulated yet,
and it appears that a batch of Keynote deliveries were very late, so if you
haven't voted yet and want to, please do so ASAP. Everyone should have
gotten the Keynote by now. This has to have MAJOR support to be
implemented, so if you want to see it be a go, be sure to say so. 

Thanks again for all your support with the ARRL RM11306 situation - who
knows what would have happened if their mistake hadn't been "noticed". 

73 88 33
Nancy

ARRL WITHDRAWS "REGULATION BY BANDWIDTH" PETITION, PLANS TO REFILE

The ARRL has withdrawn its controversial November 2005 Petition for Rule
Making (RM-11306)
<http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/rm-11306/RM-11306-asFiled.pdf>
calling on the FCC to establish a regulatory regime to segment bands by
necessary bandwidth rather than by emission mode. The League cited
"widespread misconceptions" surrounding the petition as a primary reason for
deciding to remove it from FCC consideration. The ARRL left open the option
of refiling the same or a similar petition in the future, however.

"The withdrawal of the petition will permit a full discussion and
consideration of options at the July 2007 meeting of the ARRL Board of
Directors," said ARRL President Joel Harrison, W5ZN. "The petition then can
be recast with a better explanation of its scope and the reasons for the
proposed changes."

The ARRL Executive Committee recommended withdrawing the petition when it
met by teleconference April 10. The ARRL Board of Directors subsequently
okayed the EC's recommendation by mail vote.

The ARRL Board continues to support the concept of regulation by maximum
emission bandwidth as a way to facilitate the eventual transition from
analog to digital communication modes. ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ,
emphasized that the League seeks a regulatory framework that's "fully
compatible with both narrowband and wideband analog emission modes now in
common use" on the ham bands.

Sumner expressed the hope that a refiled regulation-by-bandwidth petition
would "address -- and hopefully avoid -- widespread misconceptions" about
RM-11306, either in its original form or as amended earlier this year.
Irrespective of the present controversy over the petition's proposals, he
pointed out, the League repeatedly sought comment on its
regulation-by-bandwidth concepts before filing its petition with the FCC.

The ARRL first sounded out the Amateur Radio community regarding
regulation-by-bandwidth three years ago. A September 2004 "It Seems to Us .
. ." QST editorial "Regulation by Bandwidth" followed, explaining the
concept and its rationale. Hundreds of subsequent comments from ARRL members
and others "helped to bring the issues on which the amateur community was
not in agreement into focus."

That led to a second editorial, "Narrowing the Bandwidth Issues," in April
2005 QST, soliciting additional comments on the plan's most contentious
points. That drew hundreds more constructive and critical comments, and the
ARRL took all input into account in developing a draft petition for the
Board's consideration. The ARRL filed the petition in November 2005, and the
FCC put it on public notice in January 2006.

In all, the amateur community has posted upward of 1000 comments on
RM-11306. While some comments appropriately reflected concerns about the
proposed substantial shift in regulatory philosophy, others tended to
reflect a lack of understanding of existing rules, of the ARRL's proposals,
or both. Some expressed the view that the League was attempting to promote
or legitimize particular data modes, such as Winlink.

"The petition, in fact, had nothing specifically to do with Winlink or any
other particular data mode," Sumner maintains. "It was, rather, a means of
facilitating data experimentation, which is somewhat stifled under the
current rules" that apply almost exclusively to analog modes.

A major distraction in the public debate related to automatically controlled
data stations, and assertions that adopting the League's petition would
permit such facilities to run roughshod over CW and other traditional modes.
Sumner says automatic control is not even an essential component of the
League's regulation-by-bandwidth proposals, which would leave in place
restrictions on automatically controlled stations.

Revisions to RM-11306 the ARRL filed earlier this year to accommodate
changes in Part 97 that occurred since November 2005 only seemed to generate
additional controversy and lead to further confusion, Sumner concedes. Those
revisions would have largely confined regulation by bandwidth to the VHF and
UHF bands.

One misunderstanding resulting from an unintentional editorial error in the
League's revisions gave rise to concerns that the ARRL's proposed 3 kHz
bandwidth limitation for data emissions represented an expansion of the
currently permitted maximum bandwidth. Quite the contrary, Sumner explains.

"In fact, 3 kHz bandwidth would have been a new limitation, because the
present baud rate limit applies to individual carriers," he said.
"Therefore, for emissions such as OFDM [orthogonal frequency-division
multiplexing], which use multiple carriers, there is no effective bandwidth
limit in the HF bands now." Sumner notes that under current rules, a single
OFDM signal could conceivably -- and legally -- occupy an entire HF band.

Harrison assured that the League intends to offer a "far better explanation"
of the consequences of regulation by bandwidth before filing a new petition
proposing that regulatory concept, "so that the misunderstandings that
occurred with respect to RM-11306 do not happen again.

_______________________________________________
FISTS-Updates mailing list
FISTS-Updates at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fists-update