Topband: RM-11305

[David Gilbert]

Tom Rauch wrote:

> RM-11305 was filed on behalf of the "Communications Think
> Tank" I think it is important to pay attention to this!
>
> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi
>
> Type in RM-11305 if you are interested in reading the
> proposal. What this proposal does is essentially abolish all
> mode guidelines and turn it over to users to decide if
> someone wants to work phone, digital, or CW on any
> particular area of the band. We would depend on amateurs to
> be good citizens and follow good bandplans, and the FCC
> would have nothing much to do with saying what goes on where
> inside the band.


Any self-appointed group that has the arrogance to call themselves the 
"Communications Think Tank" gives me the shivers to start with, but the 
content of their proposal lays waste to even the pretense of intelligent 
thought.  I'm not at all against change in our hobby, and I'm willing to 
accept the fact that change might come in the form of regulations that 
negatively impact my own operating preferences.  I'm trying to keep an 
open mind on RM-11306 from the ARRL (band allocations by bandwidth), but 
RM-11305 from the "Communications Think Tank" is just plain stupid.  
Here's an excerpt from the filing:

"Our proposal, if approved, would reduce potential friction among operators
when bands are in heavy use and congested, especially during contests.
Greater flexibility in selection of operating frequencies will enhance 
cooperation
between those who choose to participate in organized operating events 
and those who do not."

What kind of thought process could come up with that conclusion?  
RM-11305 goes on to suggest that the ARRL and the Official Observer 
system would establish and enforce new and flexible voluntary band/mode 
plans ... as if any of that has ever worked well in the past.

WD8BIL appears to be the leader/spokesman of the "Communications Think 
Tank", and this quote from him (per Amateur Radio Newsline Report 1455 
dated July 1, 2005) might give some insight into the real intent of the 
petition:

"Under heavy - for example - phone operation right now,
particularly on some of the lower bands where overcrowding in the peak
hours is just horrendous it gives us the opportunity to spread out into
areas of the bands that are under utilized."

RM-11305 is so silly I find it difficult to believe the FCC would give 
it serious consideration, but who knows these days.

Dave AB7E