Fellow Topbanders,
I too filed my comments at the FCC site, and e-mailed my ARRL director
asking the ARRL to officially support RM-10352. His answer follows.
What is the league's explanation for not supporting the rule-making? I
understand the obtuseness of the FCC. I have beaten my head against that
particular wall for my entire career in the land mobile industry. I can't
for the life of me understand why our own advocates refuse to endorse such
a simple, commonsense plan that accounts for the interests of all
amateurs. Beam me up, Scotty, and 'splain this to me.
Ron - WA9IRV
>Ron Feutz, WA9IRV
>
>Hello Ron...
>
>I happen to agree with your concerns about the incompatible mixture of
>communciation modes on 160 meter band. I am also not too happy about
>the proposed expansion of the phone sub-bands the proposed Novice Sub-Band
>"re-farming". I am not a CW user, but I respect the need to keep these
>various modes from trampling CW - particularly weak signal CW.
>
>Unfortunately, the board decided to take no action to support, or oppose
>the RM-10352 petition. However, the ARRL Novice Sub-Band proposal was
>modified by reducing the proposed expansion of the phone sub-bands. But
>there is no guarantee the FCC will approve any HF sub-band reallocations
>at this time. The commission may decide to wait and see what comes out
>of the WRC-2003.
>
>I believe a separate digital sub-band should be established on each of
>the HF bands. Apparently, the ARRL will not be making this type of a
>proposal this time around. And when the next opportunity arises three
>or more years from now, it will probably be much harder to do.
>
>73 - George R. (Dick) Isely, W9GIG
>
>
|