Topband: Fwd: Re: RM-10352

[Ron Feutz]

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
>
>