I just filed electronic comments for RM-10352 at
the FCC web site. This may be our only chance at
this fellows! In another 5-7 years when sunspots
are way down and the MUF drops way down, the
band will fill up with local and regional SSB
groups. It would be a shame to let SSB wipe out
the lower 40kHz!
RM-10352 sets aside about 43kHz for narrow modes
on 160-meters, and as with all other bands DOES
NOT force any particular narrow mode into a
certain frequency segment. What it does do is
protect narrow modes from wide mode QRM by
restricting wide modes to 1843kHz and above.
It draws a clear line in the band that requires
wide modes to contain all emissions above
1843kHz, while "narrow" modes have free access
to ANY area of the 160-meter band.
Commenting is easy. The FCC accepts word
documents and other formats described on their
Web site, including just typing in "I support
(or do not support) RM-10352".
The URL to file comments is:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov//prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
You can type-in a short comment on that page or
attach an accepted file like MS Word.
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.
Thanks!
73, Tom W8JI
W8JI@contesting.com
|