Thank you for forwarding this information. I have filed my comments
with the FCC as a result.
Terry, AB5K, in my opinion, is a very respected person and I value his
input. He is always respectful of the ARRL and the FCC even though he
may disagree with their actions. I applaud him for his comments on this
subject.
And, I encourage all others to "take the time" to file your comments
with the FCC regarding RM11708. This one really needs our time.
Thank you,
Bob Hardie
W5UQ
On 06/10/2014 4:06 PM, Earl Morse wrote:
I commented 6 months ago. This was my comment:
"With the proliferation of digital modes and their ever changing protocols the
wise
thing to do is dictate occupied bandwidth as the limiter rather than baud rate.
As
protocols change the rules won't have to as long as the new protocols meet the
bandwidth requirements. Good operating practice should still dictate how digital
modes coexist with other modes but that isn't covered in this proceeding."
My problem with digital modes is that they don't know the meaning of QRL?.
Most of those ops aren't listening to what is going on when they fire up on a
frequency. If it doesn't show up on the waterfall display and the computer
doesn't decrypt it for them then it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, the ARRL
thinks they are special enough that they don't have to ask QRL? either and the
ARRL Bulletin and code practice transmissions just fire up and expect you to
move.
It should have been obvious that other services such as boaters would hijack ham
frequencies when it became easy enough to obtain a license. So while we may not have
lost our frequencies due to inactivity it looks like we may not be able to use them due
to the proliferation of use by other "non traditional" amateur services.
Actually, I thought that RM11708 was pretty innocuous since it was so vague but
I guess I may have to read it again with this in mind.
Earl
N8SS
--- [email protected] wrote:
From: "William K. Carr III" <[email protected]>
To: "'TDXS Reflector'" <[email protected]>
Subject: [tdxs-list] Why has the ARRL pushed so hard for RM-11708? Perhaps
the answer has been found. You decide for yourself.
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:40:23 -0500
For those who have been active contesters over the years, you know Terry,
AB5K. Please take time to read the information posted on the well worded
websites mentioned below.
I've monitored comments here on the TDXS reflector as well as other sites.
I'm sure you will find the information insightful and honest.
I have already filed my comments against RM-11708. I encourage you to read
this information and file your comments.
Kim, K5TU
From: Terry [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:25 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'RTTY';
[email protected]
Cc: 'David Woolweaver'; 'Stratton, John, N5AUS'; 'Ted'; 'Dan White'; 'Tom
Morrison'; 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Ron Kolarik'; 'Bob Pack NX5M'; 'Mark';
'Angelo Glorioso'; 'William K. Carr III'; 'K5WA'; 'Colin Jenkins'; 'Mike
Schoppe ( N5XJ )'; [email protected]; 'Don AA5AU'; 'Bob Farmer';
'Brad Rehm'; 'Bart Doering'; [email protected]; 'Dave Zeph'; 'Bob Farmer';
[email protected]; 'Richard L. King'; [email protected]; [email protected];
'Mark Whatley'; 'Pete Smith N4ZR'; 'Rick Ellison'; [email protected];
'Peter Laws'; 'Phil Duff'; 'Ron | K5XK'; 'Gary J - N5BAA'; 'Rick
Murphy/K1MU'; 'Scott'; [email protected]; 'Thomas W4HM'; 'William K. Carr III';
[email protected]; [email protected]; 'Jeff Stai'; 'Mike Schoppe ( N5XJ )'
Subject: Why has the ARRL pushed so hard for RM-11708? Perhaps the answer
has been found. You decide for yourself.
Folks,
The presentation titled "Why has the ARRL pushed so hard for RM-11708?
Perhaps the answer has been found" was presented to the Central Texas DX
and Contest Club last night and was well received. The presentation is now
on-line in web format at:
http://SaveCW.com/Rm11708Interests.htm
The presentation details the ARRL BOD actions for Winlink and developing
recreational boater products that are causing interference across the
amateur bands. It also details the interference by Winlink stations to the
W1AW Centennial operation and a response from K1ZZ at HQ to just go spin the
dial.
After reading the web page ask yourself the following questions. Has
amateur radio been hijacked by recreational boaters? Do you feel the
majority of traditional amateur radio operator interests are being
discounted in favor of a minority special interest group? What happened to
traditional core amateur radio values of transparency, self policing, not
competing with commercial services, and not transmitting quasi-encrypted
waveforms? Finally, ask yourself is this what amateur radio is really
about?
As documented on the web site there are many folks concerned about the
direction the ARRL is taking and about additional damages caused by
RM-11708. There are many reasons why RM-11708 is bad - all documented at
www.SaveCW.com or www.SaveRtty.com.
Please take a few minutes and log a comment against RM-11708 with the FCC.
It's a simple process and only takes a few minutes. Detailed instructions
for filing a FCC comment can be found here
<http://www.savecw.com/RM11708.pdf> .
Please forward this email to all reflectors and anyone you feel may be
interested in helping save our amateur spectrum.
Thanks,
Terry AB5K
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.tdxs.net/mailman/options/tdxs-list/kz8e%40wt.net
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.tdxs.net/mailman/options/tdxs-list/w5uq2%40att.net
_______________________________________________
BVARC mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org
