[600MRG] was: measuring power - now: a philsophical discussion on 630m

[John Langridge]

John wrote:

>There is no one here as an individual or a whole that isgoing to
>affect that change and get the FCC to make a move until *they* are
>ready to act on the matter.

steve wrote:

>Sounds like you assume that only the handful of currently interested guys could be involved.  If that's all we have to work with then your pessimistic view is justified.  But I was suggesting that if greater lobbying effort were made we could perhaps influence the situation to some degree.   

Not "could be involved" but likely to be involved in a large way.  Like you, many of us have been preaching the Gospel of 630-meter for quite some time, speaking at club meeting and giving convention presentations and opening our stations to whomever we can get to come and listen to us talk and enjoy the noise.  There is a lot of curiosity and guys want to understand but a sizable portion of the current amateur base, which is driven by the current licensing structure (a whole other topic!), does not really provide the requisite knowledge to do it without really being committed to figuring it out.  In fact, just a few posts back, Brandon asked if an extra class license was needed to get a grant.  I gave a short repsonse here because I am slammed today butI wrote him back a bit ago and told him that license class is mostly irrelevant anyway.  Becoming an experienced operator by simply being an active, curious and technically oriented ham would take him much further than any prescribed license class.  If I sound cynical its because I'm in the trenches and talking to people and that gives me a pretty good take on the pulse of the topic.  Keep in mind, I am a wildly positive presenter, to the point of almost being an obnoxious gameshow host.  I am not cynical with my audiences but simple people watching and listening to people at a hamfest will elucidate tons about the state of the discipline. 

steve wrote:

>The FCC does not chart its own destiny entirely - in the case of other services I've often seen it respond readily to interest, enthusiasm, commercial opportunities, and political pressure.  


I agree with this.  I will steer clear of the obvious political aspects of this situation but one of the overriding issues seems to be the lack or money and political motivation.  its a "round-tuit" situation again... they get to it when they get to it unless it is adventageous to them in some way.  I seem to recall the whole 60m thing happened because someone slapped the emcomm label on it.  I'm not in favor of doing that here.


steve wrote:

>My own 630m experimental work has been entirely geared toward demonstrating the practicality of hams setting up stations for operation on 475 kHz in places where HF stations are set up now.  I believe my goal has been met and I hope to produce an article summarizing my findings.  It is meant to stimulate broader interest in the new band, and I hope that this in turn would cause the ARRL to organize the interest and enthusiasm into something the FCC would respond to.

yeah, ditto - see my comments above regarding the Gospel of 630m.  This all sounds nice and I hope you are sucessful.  We are all on the same team and want the same outcome and any perceived cynicism wont change my vigor about radio activism regarding 630m and I hope it does not impact any one elses.  But instead of sitting on the curb waiting until I can get my way, I am going to go have fun... lifes too short...

73!

John KB5NJD / WG2XIQ