When the FCC solicited comments regarding the establishment of
remotely-invoked automatic operation via 97.221 back in 1995, there
were a total of 19 comments filed. The 972 comments filed for RM-
11306 represents a huge increase. My statistical samples show that
no less than 80% of all comments oppose RM-11306.
The ARRL proposed a change, and the vast majority of those motivated
to respond opposed that change on concrete grounds. From someone who
worked with the ARRL to develop their proposal, your dismissal of
this response as "noise" and "unrepresentative" indicates that the
lesson remains unlearned: stonewalling a bad idea only strengthens
the opposition.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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" <aa6yq@>
> 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/
