[SEDXC] Fw: RM-10352 - The Home Stretch!

[MIKE GREENWAY]

I am forwading this to both all members and the reflector.   If you have any
interest at all in 160, please send a comment to the FCC.  It is very easy
to do and it will help all 160 operators in the long run.  The instructions
below are very clear on how to do the process.   Please feel free to forward
it on to any interested parties.
73 Mike K4PI

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Tippett" <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
To: <K4PI@PEOPLEPC.COM>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:43 AM
Subject: RM-10352 - The Home Stretch!




We are entering the home stretch for our rulemaking petiton
to restrict wideband modes on 160 to 1843 and above.  February 7 is
the final deadline for making comment and we notice that you have
not yet commented.  Please do so now as there is an SSB group in Miami
that has been actively organizing opposition comments.  Although the
responses to date are strongly in favor, we would hate to see it
 swing the other way based on comments from people whom we have never
heard on the band before.  BTW, could you forward to N9US since we
don't seem to have a valid address for Bill.

To refresh your memory, RM-10352 is a petition to limit
wideband modes (SSB, AM and SSTV) to 1.843-2.000 MHz, which effectively
protects teh area below 1840 exclusively for CW and narrowband
 digital/data (e.g. PSK31 and whatever new narrowband digital modes may
 develop in the future).  CW would continue to have access to all
frequencies just as it does on all other amateur bands per FCC Part
 97.305(a).  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 a carrier frequency limit of
1843 to ensure that the lower part 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

 Please support us by making your comments to the FCC on the
following Webpage:

                 http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

 Simply enter RM-10352 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 apparent in the opposition's 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 may 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.