Hi Don, Pete/CWA has helpfully replied to the reflector that the ARRL's problematic bandwidth proposal shall come up for discussion this weekend at a meeting of their group's administrators.
Yes, it is easy for us, out here, to put together the two proposals, one a formal petition filed independently of the ARRL and now rejected by the FCC, and the other a draft proposal from the non-profit group in Newington. Both rely on bandwidth as part of their schemes to constrain activity beyond the current Rules. The FCC's rejection of such a scheme bodes poorly for the League's version, perhaps especially since it is far more encompassing than the 160-meter scheme the individuals were denied approval for. It remains disappointing that the Newington folks have utterly failed to foster a dialog in the time leading up to the draft, and now from the comments it elicited. A real one-way street, IMHO. As evidence, my own director, Bernie Fuller, outright refused to discuss his views on the League's scheme. The volunteer president of the ARRL, Jim Haynie, has used detours and non-answers to thoughtful, responsible questions asked by scores of people participating in a half-dozen ad hoc committees that have reviewed the published draft version of the ARRL's threatened proposal. There has been no readout from the FCC on what's known publicly about Newington's draft plan., including any agency reaction to the public and overwhelmingly negative response to it filed in identifyable postings to forums like this. Here's hoping this weekend convinces the Newington group for the future that they must seek interaction, not issue unilateral proposals, and also that this proposal needs a stake driven through its heart, pronto. Paul/VJB __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
