Several of you have asked for arguments from the opposition.
The following identical comment was posted 7 times thus far today by:
Luis Cruz, N4LDG
Juan Arencibia, KD4ZDV
Julio Perez, KD4FPP
Julio Ripoll, WD4JR
Julio Henriquez, AD4Z
jesus Hernandez (no call...duplicate of WC4H post including his call)
Carl Herrera WC4H
******************************************************************************
Please DO NOT ACCEPT RM-10352. I'm against for the following reasons:
1.) A division of narrow and wide modes would
give privileges to use of narrow modes, including digital
modes of the future against SSB modes. CW will have all the band when SSB users
will have only part of the band. This is unfair and will benefit only a very
small group of DX'ers and contesting guys.
CW users will move down NOW but will have under the rulemaking, privileges all
over the band and a " special" right when all modes and users in ham radio MUST
have the same privileges. Rulemaking of the RM-10352 is unfair under any kind of
circunstances.
2.) A bandplan will originate More FCC involvement and resources used for 160-
meters because it would cause more disputes and conflicts between operators
asking for FCC involvement in a band that is JUST used by a very small group of
people since the normal amateur do not have conditions to built the antennas
needed for this band ( recepction and transmission) and is just a privilege of
a few.
5.)160-meters can't have the same basic structure as other bands below since
there are less users, is noisy, is a night time band only and used ONLY (
mainly) in winter time.
We , (a big 160 meters users in Florida) have lots of noise all year around,
and the banplan would be a big disadvantage not to mention again the troubles
with the Canadians users who are in a different bandplan. Who can say that
Canadians will respect OUR bandplan? A " private" Canadian band is other problem
that will create the rulemaking of RM-10352 since Canadians are not affected by
FCC rules or US laws.
As somebody said ..."if is not broken why fix it?..."
Thanks
Louis Cruz, N4LDG
******************************************************************************
...and this identical comment was posted 11 times on January 23 by:
Luciano Martinez, AE4WE
Fernando Vigueras, KC4ZDR
Osvaldo Pla, KB4TFF
Miguel Mazquiaran, N4UTO
Jose M. Chavez KE4ZUD
Osvaldo Martinez, KA4GOK
Eugenio A. Flores, N4KVD
Fredy Gomez, N4QPU
Gregorio Mendez , KB4HIT
Jesus Hernandez, WA2YWD
Miguel Espinosa, KD2CL
********************************************************************************
Please DO NOT ACCEPT RM-10352. I'm against for the following reasons:
1.) A division of narrow and wide modes would
give privileges to use of narrow modes, including digital
modes of the future against SSB modes. CW will have all the band when SSB users
will have only part of the band. This is unfair.
2.) A bandplan will originate More FCC involvement and resources used for 160-
meters because it would cause more disputes
and conflicts between operators asking for FCC involvement.
5.)160-meters can't have the same basic
structure as other bands below since there are less users, is a night time band
only and used ONLY ( mainly) in winter time.
We , (a big 160 meters users in Florida) have lots of noise all year around and
the banplan would be a big disadvantage.
Miguel Mazquiaran, N4UTO
*******************************************************************************
If the voluntary bandplan is working so well, why would these hams
oppose RM-10352 which simply puts it into law? The Canadian issue was
addressed on January 24 by VE3KZ (Chair: RAC HF Band Planning Committee):
"Our revisions to our 160m plan will be on the web shortly and will offer
changes making it compatible as far as phone use is concerned."
http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/topband/2002-January/014132.html
We respectfully ask again that you consider filing your comments
on RM-10352 before the close of business tomorrow, February 7th.
Thank you very much & 73,
Jeff K1ZM and Bill W4ZV
|