This Region 2 plan never came up for a vote at the ARRL Board meetings. The Board of Directors have no vote in International rulings. FCC was never against RM-11306. It was pulled before the FCC formally responded to it.
Nothing like fanning the flames. Pete, wa2cwa On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:08:55 -0400 "Mike Sawyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Other than being thrusted through by the 'board of embicils' at the > > ARRgghhL, why there wasn't any polling or surveying used as a basis > for the > adoption of these plans. Just the fact that the majority of hams and > the FCC > was against RM-11306 demonstrates the (be)League(d)'s plan was > unwanted by > not only AM'ers, but all users of every other mode. My only hope is > that TOM > will be awaken from his grave in Hagerstown, MD and run roughshod > over the > bumblers in Newington by beating them on the head with the Woulff > Houng and > stuffing the Retttysnitch where the 'sun don't shine and pills can't > reach!' > Mod-U-Lator, > Mike(y) > W3SLK > > > Steve Johnston, WD8DAS wrote: > > Earlier I wrote to the ARRL...now I've sent the following message to > these > officials of IARU and IARU-Region2... > > [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],9y4ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] > t.net.tt,[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] t.net > .tt,[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],rlea ndro@ > cantv.net,[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Dear IARU Officer - > > I see that the IARU has adopted, effective Jan 1 2008, a new "MF/HF > band > plan" for Region 2 that places restrictive limitations on > transmitted signal > bandwidths and overlooks common modes and practices on the bands 160 > - 10m. > > I am VERY much against such limits - tight regulation and > restrictions like > these goes completely against the experimental and innovative > aspects of ham > radio. As a member of ARRL, which is the US member society of IARU, > I urge > you > to stop this plan from going into effect. > > I understand that it is a voluntary plan, but because it does not > match > common practice on the bands today it will be ignored by thousands > of > operators. > Why make a plan that doesn't match present reality? > > But, voluntary or not, my position remains that plan is defective. > Bandplans > like this have a history of increasing the stress among amateurs > with > arguments and finger-pointing. And voluntary ones tend to become > ever more > "official" over time, so I think it is vital that we not err on the > side of > restriction and limitation which could hinder our future > communication > options. > > Steve Johnston, WD8DAS > ARRL Member > Fitchburg, Wisconsin. ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:[email protected] To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body.
