Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dee Flint wrote:
About what time of day and are they still running? Hi Dee, It was evenings that I saw them, sometimes weekends. I'm not sure if that was the only times that they were on - it might have been because those were the only times I watch TV. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 31, 2:52 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: The big mistake ARRL (and CTT, and many others) make is that they don't really know how popular their proposals are *before* submitting them to FCC. Whatever is the point of *any* amateur radio group submitting a Part 97 proposal that generates 70, 80, 90% negative comments? All that does is annoy FCC, IMHO. The way I see it is that indeed the proposal was a big mistake. The folks who were all about the robot stations effectively took over the process, and hoped to push things through with their agenda intact. I don't know if 'the folks who were all about the robot stations' took over the process or not. But that doesn't matter. What I do know is that there was a widespread *perception* that RBB was "all about robots" and conducted behind closed doors. That *perception* was pure poison when comment-time came around. It galvanized so many hams into writing anti-RBB comments that the good parts of the proposal were lost in the uproar. The really sad thing is that the BoD, who OK'd the proposal, didn't see all that ahead of time. This is not an unusual thing. Many different groups see their own interests as paramount to the "big picture" in Ham radio (though it isn't exclusive to the ARS) Of course. And the way you get around that sort of resistance is to let all groups have their say, and come up with proposals that give everybody something of what they want. I've sat through lectures from Emergency Operation fans on how amateur radio MUST change to acommodate their particular view. Pro contesters/anti contesters, the different folks involved all have a vision of what the service needs to be. Sure. And they're almost all right! The trick is to make room for everyone. For example, I think WinLink/Pactor/robots are a great thing in Amateur Radio. I think many of our rules on them are outdated and in need of rewriting. I even think the "no-data-in-the-phone-bands" rule has to go. But at the same time, I do not think that simply allowing robot operation everywhere is a good thing. That's why I opposed both RBB and CTT. In the case of the RBB, the big picture was circumvented, and the result was predictable and hams did their job. Some people look at it as a failure. I look at as a shining success. A bad idea was beat down. It was a failure in my view because: 1) A lot of good ideas in RBB were beat down too 2) The beat-down of the bad ideas should have happened *before* it was ever sent to FCC, not after. 3) The proposal asked a lot of hams to give something up, without giving them anything in return, or not enough in return. Meanwhile, other hams would gain something without giving anything up. Or at least it seemed that way to many hams. This is why proposals like RBB and CTT go nowhere, IMHO. Suppose somebody came up with a composite mode that combined SSB voice and a PSK31-like data mode in a bandwidth of less than 3 kHz. I think that would be a good thing for Amateur Radio, and under RBB it would be legal. Under current rules it's not allowed on US HF amateur radio, though, and with the mess created by RBB and CTT, it won't be for many years to come. IMHO, one of the reasons it takes *years* for FCC to make even simple changes to Part 97 (like dumping the code test) is because we USA hams don't get our act together before sending proposals to FCC. Look at how Canada handled the code test thing. They sent out surveys, got ideas, and put together an innovative plan that generated consensus among VE hams. Only when they could point to hard numbers about how much widespread support their was for their proposal did they send it to Industry Canada. And Industry Canada put the change in place with little hassle. The whole process was a done deal long before the USA got around to changing Part 97, and IMHO the Canadian change generated less animosity among VE hams than the USA process did here. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 3, 3:44?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: On Jul 31, 2:52 pm, Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: I don't know if 'the folks who were all about the robot stations' took over the process or not. But that doesn't matter. I disagree. I believe it matters very much. See below about the very wise man you quoted. What I do know is that there was a widespread *perception* that RBB was "all about robots" and conducted behind closed doors. That *perception* was pure poison when comment-time came around. It galvanized so many hams into writing anti-RBB comments that the good parts of the proposal were lost in the uproar. A very wise man once told me that if enough people have a perception of something, it doesn't matter what the truth is, the perception becomes the truth. And as hard as that may be to swallow, it is just how things are. I would say that the perception is what drives people's actions, not that the perception is the truth. Most of all, what happens in those cases is that the perception matters more than the truth. That's what I meant by "It doesn't matter" whether the folks who are all about robots took drove RBB or not. The really sad thing is that the BoD, who OK'd the proposal, didn't see all that ahead of time. This is not an unusual thing. Sad but true - in many things. Many different groups see their own interests as paramount to the "big picture" in Ham radio (though it isn't exclusive to the ARS) It certainly isn't! And the way you get around that sort of resistance is to let all groups have their say, and come up with proposals that give everybody something of what they want. I've sat through lectures from Emergency Operation fans on how amateur radio MUST change to acommodate their particular view. Pro contesters/anti contesters, the different folks involved all have a vision of what the service needs to be. Sure. And they're almost all right! The trick is to make room for everyone. Actually I'm not so sure about everyone being right. Everyone isn't right. That's why I wrote "almost". My experience has been that people who are intensely interested in one thing or the other don't believe that others needs are of sufficient interest. Sometimes. Which is why it is important that any BOD is interested in the big picture. The trouble is that almost every specialized interest will say *they* are the big picture! For example, I think WinLink/Pactor/robots are a great thing in Amateur Radio. I think many of our rules on them are outdated and in need of rewriting. I even think the "no-data-in-the-phone-bands" rule has to go. I think that the stations have to become a whole lot better behaved before they are allowed anywhere. I'm not proposing that they be allowed everywhere. The business of just opening up whenever and wherever is bad stuff. But at the same time, I do not think that simply allowing robot operation everywhere is a good thing. That's why I opposed both RBB and CTT. As a person chased off the air (or at least to another frequency) by the machines, I couldn't agree more. There has been a lot of discussion re the PSK31 "segment", with a lot of people telling us to "just move". Yeah, I guess we could. The nature of PSK31 is such that making it's practitioners fly all over the band in search of a free spot is a great way to kill it. especially for those who use the rockbound radios. A lot of the PSK units are just a rockbound transceiver tied to a laptop. Which is the beauty of the mode: that it can give such good results without an elaborate setup. Unless I am mistaken, a ham could take an old computer that's useless for almost everything else and get on PSK31 with it and a radio that costs under $100. It got bad enough that at least in the Digipan PSK software, the programmer put in receive only for the robots so that we could ID them and complain to the F.C.C. Has anyone done that? Such complaints should also go to the ARRL BoD and the committee that wrote RBB as well, IMHO All that fuss over 1 3KHz piece of the band! Yep. It was a failure in my view because: 1) A lot of good ideas in RBB were beat down too 2) The beat-down of the bad ideas should have happened *before* it was ever sent to FCC, not after. 3) The proposal asked a lot of hams to give something up, without giving them anything in return, or not enough in return. Meanwhile, other hams would gain something without giving anything up. Or at least it seemed that way to many hams. This is why proposals like RBB and CTT go nowhere, IMHO. And that is why I consider it a good thing. I agree with you that ideas should be tested out before submission. I think the submission of proposals that fail miserably damages the credibility of the submitting organization. That's particularly true if the organization says they represent the amateur community, or a large part of it. If an organization cannot motivate its membership to produce a large number of supporting comments, it tells FCC that the organization doesn't really know what its members want. I really strongly believe that when special interest subgroups get hold of the process, they invariably subvert it to their interest. I disagree. But I do agree that it's very possible for them to do so. While there may have been good ideas in RBB, the bad ones were bad enough that it was worth losing the whole thing. I agree. But I think a proposal could have been developed that kept the good ideas and lost the bad ones. Hopefully the BOD paid attention to that fact. Hopefully. IMHO, one of the reasons it takes *years* for FCC to make even simple changes to Part 97 (like dumping the code test) is because we USA hams don't get our act together before sending proposals to FCC. Look at how Canada handled the code test thing. We can do it also. At least in principle. I hope so. Practice will be a lot harder, as I suspect that we might be a little more of a contentious lot than our VE brethren. Maybe. But I think if US hams are approached in a reasonable way, they will be reasonable. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
June 24, 2007 ARS License Numbers | Moderated | |||
May 22, 2007 ARS License Numbers | Moderated | |||
April 22, 2007 ARS License Numbers | Moderated | |||
March 9 2007 License Numbers | Moderated | |||
March 22, 2007 License Numbers | Moderated |