Just a couple of comments as I hope to not get very involved in this
other than comments directly to any possible RM. Only the ARRL Division
Directors have the power.
I might offer up some things from the last time. December 1989. ARRL
proposed without input from the rank and file and from the users of the
digital spectrum _RTTY Journa_l January 1990; RM-7248 withdrawn May/June
1990 _RTTY Journal_.
See _RTTY Journal_ May/June 1993 Pg 24 for ARRL Digital Committee report.
Last time we had perhaps a more coherent organization but the digital
user has done battle against the ARRL and won. Dale Sinner, Buck
Rogers, myself, and many others put in a great deal of time and effort
but only the user that writes their Division Director, that files
coherent rationale arguments with the FCC, that gets clubs and
organizations to file with the same view point can prevail.
If you don't have some of the old RTTY Journals ask around and see if
you can read some of the stuff from other times.
On 11/21/2013 5:39 AM, Dave Barr wrote:
I am gratified to see that most of the comments on this subject are
calm and reasoned, and hope that terminology like "attack" will not be
used in any effort to revise the ARRL's attempt to change parameters
of digital operation.
I hope that the technically knowledgeable members on this reflector
will make carefully crafted and calm responses to the proposed rule
changes to the FCC when the opportunity arrives. Perhaps it would be
more effective if the specific problems raised by the proposal, and
their solutions, should be agreed upon as much as possible by those
who intend to make comments to the FCC.
It is unfortunate that the League is unable to acknowledge that a
large segment of its members who will be affected by this action are
opposed to the proposal as it stands. Let us all make sure our
division and section officials know how we feel.
73, Dave, K2YG
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|