[Boatanchors] [Glowbugs] I agree

[Glen Zook]

The ARRL has been, seemingly, pushing for more WINLINK / PACTOR availability for some time.  One speculation is that they hope to increase membership through more boat, and yacht, owners getting licenses specifically for operating using those modes because they do not want to have to pay for Internet access using considerably more expensive commercial links.  Of course, being able to afford, and to operate, such watercraft usually requires a substantial investment and yet those same people don't want to spend any money to be able to use the Internet while on the water.  Then, again, amateur radio operators also have a reputation as to being "cheap" and, I suppose, boat / yacht owners are no different where money is concerned!
Although the ARRL does not normally make the actual number of members public, if one takes a look at the mailing notice that has to be published, periodically, that is in small print in the back of QST, it is pretty easy to get a pretty good idea as to the number of members.  
For some time, the ARRL has "pushed" EMCOMM to get new members to replace other members who have abandoned the ARRL and, it seems, that they are doing the same thing with boat owners.
I abandoned the ARRL some time back because they have long stopped supporting what I believe the direction that amateur radio should take.  Since I am not an ARRL member, I do not comment on the internal workings of that organization.  However, when the ARRL submits petitions to the FCC, or even when they are proposing such, that affects the entire amateur radio population then I definitely do have the right to comment!
Several years ago, the ARRL submitted a request for an NPRM that expanded WINLINK / PACTOR operations that they retracted after quite an uprising within the membership.  It appears that they might be trying it again.
I realize that thing are changing and have been changing for some time during the over 56-years that I have been licensed and some of those changes have been for the good of amateur radio and some have not been good for amateur radio.  However, I definitely believe in doing everything possible to stop changes that are definitely not in the best interests of the Amateur Radio Service.
Glen, K9STH 
Website: http://k9sth.net
    

  From: Bry Carling AF4K <bcarling at cfl.rr.com>
 To: k1zz at arrl.net 
Cc: FLBOATANCHORS at yahoogroups.com; tetrode at googlegroups.com; Novice-Rigs at mailman.qth.net; amradio at mailman.qth.net; Arizona-AM at yahoogroups.com; dcboatanchors at mailman.qth.net; CarolinaHamSwap at yahoogroups.com; boatanchors at puck.nether.net
 Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 4:46 PM
 Subject: [Glowbugs] I agree
   
Dear David,
I echo all of the sentiments below. I think that in retrospect, it was a huge mistake to take away so much CW spectrum from the General Class CW operators on 80m.
I also want to STRONGLY OPPOSE expansion of WINLINK / PACTOR and any other UNATTENDED digital mode operations on our HF bands! They cause QRM and are a nuisance no matter what is done to claim that they have been cleaned up!
Many of my ham friends and I confess to having missed the April 2015 QST article and your It Seems to Us page in the September 2015 issue. These articles discuss proposed changes to accommodate digital modes, while eliminating or reducing extra class phone privileges on 80 meters. Many of us have now been awakened to the ARRL’s conclusions and the proposed recommendations to its executive committee, and to the FCC. And while the door may be closed to the initial polling (only 1,000 respondents), we nevertheless feel the need for clarification, and if necessary an appeal for a reconsideration of these ARRL’s proposals.First, this may be simply a matter of clarification. I read, and then re-read both the September and April articles several times. I can find no assurance that the proposal would provide that the remaining 3650-3700 phone segment will be retained for the exclusive use of Amateur Extra Class licensees. While this may be merely an oversight, the absence of this assurance seems suspicious. A clear statement in your recap like “while the extra class phone exclusivity will be reduced by 50 kHz, the 3650-3700 segment will be protected for the exclusive use of holders of Amateur Extra Class licensees,” would have eliminated much anxiety. Would you please clarify this via email and through QST as soon as possible.Next, many of us earned extra class licenses through hard work and devotion to the hobby. I earned mine shortly after incentive licensing was introduced in the 1970s. Incentive licensing is, in my opinion, one of the ARRL’s most significant initiatives. I was very proud to be awarded my new license, the extra band operating privileges, and the right to request special call signs. Many of us I am sure had the feeling that we were in the top of the class! Today of course, some of these hard earned “extras” have either disappeared or made available to a broader base of hams without that extra effort. Then there is the dropping of the 20 WPM code requirement, and the code requirement completely, etc., which further eroded the merit-based/privilege system that incentive licensing had launched. Moreover, remember that many of us are in our 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and so on, and we continually hear about the erosion of our other hard-earned rights in other areas of life (Social Security, Medicare, Veteran’s benefits, etc.).My recent posting to the qrz.com posting on this subject Friday rapidly became a popular topic. And discussions on nets to which I belong and among club members proved that many extras class licensees were totally unaware of these proposals. I have also received an extraordinary number of private emails since Friday questioning the ARRL’s motives, and the protection of our operating privileges.So David, would you kindly send your reply to me (via email) as soon as possible addressing the above points? Please address these specific questions:1. Is it true that the ARRL proposal will protect exclusive Amateur Extra Class 80 meter phone frequencies (either 3650-3750, or even 3650-3700) and thus add that specific language to this proposal? And if not, why not?2. Will you reopen this issue for further input now that a wider audience has had the time to become informed? (As of noon today, Sunday, there have been nearly 12,000 views on the qrz.com forum.)3. When is the ARRL Executive Committee supposed to take this matter up, and where do we find a listing of the members of this committee?Thank you for your time, David. And thank you for the many fine things you and the ARRL do for our hobby.Respectfully,73,