OPPOSE RM-11306 are we confused??

Todd, KA1KAQ ka1kaq at GMAIL.COM
Mon Feb 6 16:35:09 EST 2006

On 2/6/06, Peter A Markavage <pmarkavage at juno.com> wrote:
> 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.

Nah, I disagree (except for the 'ARRL baaad' part). And I have more
faith in my fellow hams overall I guess than either of you. It's
amazing that on 160 meters where there is no 'special treatment',
mayhem still hasn't broken out. Yet other bands that have subbands
seem to be a problem. Makes me think of the higher crime rates in
states with more gun laws. But why cite the obvious, when there's so
much hand-wringing about the 'what ifs' to be done? You have to wonder
how other amateurs throughout the rest of the world manage to conduct
themselves as anything other than savages according to the mayhem
theory. I bet what we really need is more regulation of 160 meters, to
keep the 'jungle' at bay. (o:

Also, the current rules seem to adress the question of bandwidth
pretty well, as they did with original power issues. Something along
the lines of 'good amateur practice'. It would appear that the
original intent was indeed to trust the judgement of someone duly
licensed to operate.

It's clear that many need to be told what to do, but rather than
making still more laws and regulations to deal with issues that can be
dealt with using fewer, I think the better approach is to streamline
the rules and get back to basics, with fewer 'special exceptions' for
special groups. Let everyone compete on an equal footing here, and
with the rest of the amateurs in the world, before we turn ham radio
into yet another 'short bus' segment of society.

Interestingly, it's very much a slice of society: those who need the
false sense of security from additional regulation or a gov't subsidy
for their particular interest and those who don't. Ultimately the FCC
will do what it thinks is best, regardless. One thing should be
abundantly clear: increased regulations have not cleaned up the bands
over the years. Only increased enforcement will. So, how complicated
do we want to make it? And what modes are we willing to penalize to
favor others? It's not at all unlike the majority/minority issues we
see every day in our part of the world.

de Todd/'Boomer'  KA1KAQ

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