Topband Friends!
We are entering the home stretch for our rulemaking petiton
to restrict wideband modes on 160 to 1843 kHz and above. Tomorrow is
the final deadline for making comment and we hope that all of you will
make your voice heard. There are two primary groups in opposition,
an SSB group and an AM group along with a few No Code International
members. We wonder why these groups would be in opposition if they
intended to follow all 3 IARU Regional and ARRL Voluntary Bandplans which
prohibit wideband modes below 1840? It does not take a rocket scientist
to answer that. Although the responses to date are strongly in favor,
we would hate to see it swing the other way based on comments from
organized groups who may covet the area below 1840.
To refresh your memory, RM-10352 is a petition to limit
wideband modes (SSB, AM and SSTV) to 1.843-2.000 MHz. This effectively
protects the area below 1840 exclusively for narrowband modes (CW and
digital such as PSK31 and any other new narrowband digital modes which
may develop in the future). CW would continue to be allowed full access
per FCC Part 97.305(a) for all amateur bands. This Petition is consistent
with the recently revised ARRL Bandplan and with all 3 IARU Regional
Bandplans which recommend only narrowband modes below 1840. We chose
the carrier frequency limit of 1843 to ensure that the lower edge of a
LSB signal would not extend below 1840. If you wish to read the full
petition, please see:
http://users.vnet.net/btippett/rm_petition.htm
If you have not already done so, please support us by making
your comments to the FCC on the following Webpage:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
Enter RM-10352 (case sensitive!) in Box 1, fill in all other non-optional
boxes, enter your comment in the bottom box and click "Send Brief
Comment" and then click "Finish Transaction" on the next page.
If you have any problems, or do NOT get a confirmation number from
the FCC, please contact W4ZV and he can help you with the process.
We strongly suggest using your own words since it may be apparent to
the FCC if you simply "parrot" what someone else has said, which is
quite obvious in several opposition comments. A simple "I support
RM-10352" is OK too but sharing your experience and reasoning with the
FCC may be more valuable. Please help us by making your comments
before the FCC window closes February 7.
73 & Thank you,
Bill W4ZV and Jeff K1ZM
P.S. Here are a couple of comments by Topbanders you know:
As a former ARRL director I firmly support RM-10352 which
segmentizes the 160 meter band by operating mode. As an operator
on 160 meters I fully appreciate the annoying interference made by both
AM and SSB phone operators below 1843 KHz when using CW. But the
phone operators also will benefit by RM-10352. This change is long
overdue, benefits all, and has minimal cost impact.
(Signed)
Griffith L. Gordon, K4VX
Tom W8JI regarding his submission to the FCC:
My comments, which came out in FAVOR of
accepting RM-10352 as written, point out:
1.) A division of narrow and wide modes would
enhance use of narrow modes, including digital
modes of the future.
2.) Lessen FCC involvement and resources used
for 160-meters because it would reduce disputes
and conflicts between operators.
3.) Provide protected space for experimentation
with narrow modes of the future.
4.) Protect all current narrow modes from wide-
mode interference.
5.) Bring 160-meters into the same basic
structure as other bands below UHF, where ALL
other bands have a narrow-mode-only segment.
|