All "the sky is falling" rhetoric does not serve cause of those opposed. Change is coming. Figure out ways to live with it. RM-11708 is not perfect. There needs to be compromise not fanatical opposition . . . or promotion. The same is true for those who favor it; compromise.
I attended the N1MM session at Plano to learn, not to be proselytized. I was very disappointed that the particular session was hijacked to promote a personal agenda. That was totally out of line. While I respect the presenter's scientific credentials, his misuse of the forum devalues the weight of his argument. 73, Ron, K5HM [email protected] www.qrz.com/db/k5hm -----Original Message----- From: NARS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Dutson Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:25 AM To: 'Terry'; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'CTDXCC' Cc: 'Stratton, John, N5AUS'; 'Dan White'; [email protected]; 'Alan Brown'; [email protected] Subject: Re: [NARS] [CTDXCC] FW: [tdxs-list] RM-11708 I have a suggestion. Let's pour all of our energy into assessing the actual impact of RM-110708. If there is proof that the bands are being degraded, then it should be easy to get a petition together to repeal the action. 73, Keith NM5G -----Original Message----- From: NARS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Terry Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 6:59 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'CTDXCC' Cc: 'Dan White'; [email protected]; 'Alan Brown'; [email protected]; 'Stratton, John, N5AUS' Subject: Re: [NARS] [CTDXCC] FW: [tdxs-list] RM-11708 Allen, Thanks for taking a stand against RM-11708. I have one of the Dayton Anti-RM-11708 buttons for you and will be hanging around the DFW Contest lunch and presentations Friday. Does anyone know when the ARRL Q&A session is on Saturday. I sure hope it's in a big room. Terry AB5K -----Original Message----- From: CTDXCC [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Allen R. Brier Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:54 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; CTDXCC Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [CTDXCC] FW: [tdxs-list] RM-11708 More on RM-11708. Allen R. Brier 1515 Windloch Lane Richmond, TX 77406-2553 281-342-1882 (Home) 281-342-1590 (Home Office) 713-705-4801 (Cell) <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] From: Dave Rogers [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 18:58 To: Dr. David Woolweaver Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [tdxs-list] RM-11708 David, Thanks for your reply. I completely understand that you will be fully occupied with HamCom. I will again present these questions at the ARRL Q&A session on Saturday. And I can virtually guarantee you that these will be the only questions on the agenda. This is the MOST divisive issue since incentive licensing. So if I were you I would bring my kevlar vest. 73, dave On Jun 11, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Dr. David Woolweaver <[email protected]> wrote: Dave: You deserve a detailed answer, but I have to postpone that answer as I am preparing for the Regional Centennial Convention at HamCom. There are lots of things to do before Friday. David On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:50 PM, Dave Rogers <[email protected]> wrote: David, I have read everything the League has published about the proposed RM-11708 and so far I cannot find the reason for this proposed rule making. No where does the League state the problem that this change attempts to solve. And so far as I can tell the only effect of this proposal is dramatically increased QRM on the lower portion of all the HF bands. When recently asked about all the new QRM by one our members (K0IDT), David Sumner, K1ZZ gave a totally inappropriate smart aleck reply, "short term frequency conflicts are best dealt with by using the VFO knob". Since you attend BOD meetings as out West Gulf Division Director and are on the Executive Committee I’m sure you must have a better handle on this situation than everyone else. Please explain what the problem that RM-11708 attempts to correct. Please explain why the ARRL is making this proposal in contravention of IARU recommendations. Please explain why we now need to put automated wide bandwidth digital signals into the traditionally narrow bandwidth portion of the HF bands. Without a better response from the League than Sumner’s sorry comment I will start lobbying everyone in my ham radio circle to file comments with the FCC urging the Commission to deny RM-11708. We deserve better than this from the ARRL. 73, dave -- Dave Rogers, NR5K [email protected] -- Dave Rogers, NR5K [email protected] _______________________________________________ CTDXCC mailing list [email protected] http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/ctdxcc ______________________________________________________________ NARS mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nars Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ NARS mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nars Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html _______________________________________________ BVARC mailing list [email protected] http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org
