Perhaps those who are in favor of RM-11306 took the wise advice not to "mail bomb" the FCC with comments that all say the same thing. There is only strength in numbers when that strength has a purpose. I personally see no purpose in asking over 5,000 US hams who use "local or automatic control" per Part 97.221 to email comments. It just creates "noise." This is also the case with those involved with EmComm. A few well thought out comments to the FCC are of more value than mail bombing to prove some point.
Lastly, the total number of comments received are not representative of the US Amateur population for any respectable sampling, and can hardly be stated as "overwelming either way. Steve, k4cjx --- In [email protected], "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is interesting to note that those strongly opposing open > discussion here of the impact of remotely-invoked unattended > operation on digital mode stations are also those speaking strongly > in favor of the expanded use of remotely-invoked unattended > operation. > > Its a bit late for the mushroom strategy, guys. The overwhelming > majority of comments filed with the FCC opposed the ARRL proposal, > and many of those were authored by the participants of this > reflector. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In [email protected], John Bradley <jbradley@> > wrote: > > > > move them to the policy group discussions. ............ as well as > the long , on-going debates about the ARRL. Let's keep the focus on > > digital radio in a global sense, letting the US hams debate the > ARRL issues elsewhere. > > > > John > > VE5MU > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:10 PM > > Subject: [digitalradio] New poll for digitalradio > > > > > > > > Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the > > digitalradio group: > > > > Should debate about unattended digital stations (such as > Pactor) , their usefulness, > > and their band allocations, be allowed on this reflector? > > > > o Yes, allow without restrictions > > o No, move such posts to the DigiPol group > > o I don't care either way > > o I don't know. > > > > > > To vote, please visit the following web page: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/surveys?id=2151961 > > > > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are > > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! > Groups > > web site listed above. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to > Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > > Other areas of interest: > > > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan > policy discussion) > > > > > > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS Ham radio Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ - > ----------- > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > a.. Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web. > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms > of Service. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ - > ----------- > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ - > ----------- > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.0.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: > 2/24/06 > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
