OPPOSE RM-11306 are we confused??

Peter A Markavage pmarkavage at JUNO.COM
Mon Feb 6 15:44:41 EST 2006

Early on the CTT touted their RM-11305 proposal. However, early on it
also probably became clear to them there wasn't much support for it so,
to get a bigger bang, I quess, they and their supporters, are putting all
their efforts to kill the ARRL proposal. i.e. It's an ARRL proposal; it
can't be good for us.

Pete, wa2cwa

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:30:23 -0500 Al Parker <anchor at EC.RR.COM> writes:
> Hi folks,
>     I'm easily confused until I find out what we're talking about.  Is
everyone (anyone) in the same situation with me here?
>     There are 2 things before the FCC:  RM-11306, proposed by the ARRL
which limits bandwidth of emissions for various modes.
>  and RM-11305, proposed by some small splinter group called
"Communications Think Tank" which proposes NO bandwidth limitations and
NO separate sub-bands for CW & fone, etc.  (It appears that they are the
guys who want to use very wide AM signals.)
>   Take a look at http://www.w8ji.com/rm-11305.htm  to see  something
about the differences.
>  If I've got it correctly (that's questionable, I know) then we  should
be REALLY opposing RM-11305, which is not the ARRL proposal.
>  I'm against robot operations.  I'm against wideband emissions in  the
CW bands, realizing that fone is permitted in what we call our CW  bands,
> in other portions of the world, some not so far away.  But, until
recently, for example, you rarely heard any voice, rtty, pactor,  etc, on
40m below 7050.  Gentlemen prevailed.  It's not that way anymore.  It's
also untrue that CW is dying or dead.  I've maintained for  a long time
that you could tune across 40m, for example, count the CW qso's  in
progress, and the fone qso's, and you'd find more CW in 7050 to say 
> than you will amateur voice qso's above 7150.  One of these days I'm
gonna do the count.  It will depend a bit on time of day (try it at nite,

> you'll find very few amateur fone qso's anywhere on 40m.
>  I still need to read more of the ARRL's proposal, but it looks  to me
that it's gonna generally help most of us.  If it's proposing  automatic
> robot operations, e.g.winlink, etc., I'm against that part of it.   The
concept of winlink is commercial, it should be accomodated on  existing
commercial bands, with a "special" no code, etc., test if needed. The
other one, RM-11305 would give license to commit mayhem on  any  band.
> 73 all,
> Al, W8UT
> New Bern, NC

This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona

Subscription control - http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.asp?list=BOATANCHORS
Archives - http://listserv.tempe.gov/archives/BOATANCHORS.html

More information about the Boatanchors mailing list