ARRL Bandwidth Proposal

Larry Knapp kc8jx at YAHOO.COM
Mon Dec 12 13:39:57 EST 2005

I had told myself that I would not comment on this subject but after a 'personal session with
myself' I feel I must defend Pete (though I'm sure he is more than capable of doing so) and those
who support his position.  I support the position that "ARRL provided 15 months to comment on the
draft proposal".

Much of this discussion is familiar, as in general elections.  I am always surprised at those who
gripe, moan and complain regarding the state of affairs in this country yet fail to vote.  Then
after the election the same, who did not vote, continues the diatribe.  Personally, I prefer to a
participant in solutions and not be part of the problem.

I have been a ham since 1961 and a loyal member of the A.R.R.L. for most of these 44 years; I been
a life member for many years.  During most of these years I have been grateful for the support of
the league in handling many tough issues we hams face.  Did they always end up like I wanted?  No.
 The one vote I have I guard jealously.  I have always felt I have had my opportunity to voice my
opinions to those in the A.R.R.L. be it in emails, letters or personal sessions with A.R.R.L.
leaders; also adequate space and time was given in QST and members as well as any reader was given
more than adequate time to voice their opinion on this specific matter (bandwidth proposal).  I
have never felt that I did not have adequate opportunity to have my opinion heard.  This also does
not mean that my specific opinion would carry the day.  However, being a non-member means that
opportunity can be lost; how can a non-member be solicited if one is not on the mailing list (or
email list)?  What other organization has the 'possible' power to assist and help in so many ways
as the A.R.R.L. does?  It certainly is doing more than just 'bandwidth' issues.

In our Great Lakes Division, our director Jim Weaver, K8JE actively solicits member opinion on a
variety of issues through emails, hamfest meetings and other activities.  I'm sure other division
directors do also.  I refuse to believe this notion that the A.R.R.L. has "without having first
properly consulted with radio amateurs on the matter".  I know I have seen and responded to many a
poll and added much comment to emails from Jim Weaver.  The actual fact that some have not
commented to the A.R.R.L. except inside these reflectors speaks volumes.  This country was founded
on the belief that differing opinions are valued.  However, one must always take into account that
just because you believe the way you do does not mean that everyone does or that I have to agree
with you.  I defend your right to say what you do, but I don't have to agree.

I find that two unmistakable laws almost always apply.  First, life is not fair.  Second, this is
not a Burger King world
.you do not always get to have it your way.

Best 73, Larry  KC8JX
A.R.R.L. Life member      

--- Peter A Markavage <pmarkavage at JUNO.COM> wrote:
> A much better poll on amateur radio newsline:
> Probably a better cut of unbiased voters.
> ARRL provided 15 months to comment on the draft proposal before it was submitted to the FCC. The
"other" proposal that was submitted in June 2005 by 7 amateurs and requested no input from any
other amateurs.........."
> Pete, wa2cwa
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:10:36 -0500 Brian Carling <bcarling at CFL.RR.COM>
> writes:
> > Some interesting discussion on the ARRL Bandwidth Proposal 
> > that they have sent over to the FCCwithout having first 
> > properly consulted with radio amateuirs on the matter.
> > 
> >
> > 
> > The Survey POLL in particular is VERY telling about how 
> > most radio amateurs feel about the rash step that the 
> > ARRL leadership is attempting.

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona

Subscription control -
Archives -

More information about the Boatanchors mailing list