On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 14:51 -0400, nm8rmedic wrote:
> Until evidence is presented otherwise, I don't think we can assume the
> ARRL is 'all over this' FCC RFI inquiry.
>
> I contacted the gentleman who was listed at the end of the document.
> First, his ARRL email address did not work. After I dug around and
> found an IEEE address I was able to make contact. But I didn't get
> much assistance in how to best address the FCC in this action.
>
> I requested other filing documents we could review so we didn't have
> to reinvent the wheel. The feds are pretty specific about format, so
> it would be a shame to have a well-conceived reply be rejected because
> it failed the formatting test.
>
> No help.
>
> The army of volunteers the ARRL could bring to bear is left unfocused
> and unmanaged. Each to his own.
>
> A very inefficient way to approach this battle.
>
> Yes, I've discussed this with ARRL leadership, all the way to the top
> of the ladder.
>
> Scott
I will continue to assume the ARRL is actively involved. I can't
imagine them missing this opportunity.
--
73's, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
For software/hardware reviews see:
http://www.nk7z.net
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|