OPPOSE RM-11306

[Peter A Markavage]

That why I said in the Comments that Section 97.221 should be retained to
keep them from wandering the entire band. If the rule is retained, and
the Winlink stuff starts to grow with stations later on, they'll either
choke themselves to death or they'll have to petition the FCC for a rule
making. This gives us another chance to beat them into submission.

Pete, wa2cwa

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:03:37 -0500 Brian Carling <bcarling at CFL.RR.COM>
writes:
> On 6 Feb 2006 at 13:27, Peter A Markavage wrote:
> 
> > **** If you read my response to RM-11306, I indicated that a 
> better
> > approach is to remove the the Exemption Note, Note 1, and make 
> each 
> > > HF phone band, with the exception of 60 meters, have a max 
> bandwidth 
> > of 9 KHz. This still allows for strong band planning, and removes 
> 
> > > the AM'ers stigma of a note exemption.
> 
> Pfft yeah pull the other leg, Pete! - and this also allows wider,
> noisier, nastier, (but faster) HF WInlink signals than we have 
> right now. Oh and yes right in there on the phone bands too!
> 
> I would agree with this ONLY if the unattended stations were 
> limited toi a very small segment on each band where they can 
> play happily and jam the heck out of each other all day to 
> their mindless, aluminum hearts' content!

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

Subscription control - http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.asp?list=BOATANCHORS
To post - BOATANCHORS at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV
Archives - http://listserv.tempe.gov/archives/BOATANCHORS.html