As far as I know, there was no change in the ARRL's "regulation by
bandwidth" proposal from the point in time when feedback was
solicited to the point when it was submitted to the FCC as RM-11306.
I saw no public response to this feedback -- e.g a list of the major
concerns with an explanation of why the ARRL believed that no change
in the proposal was warranted. Operating this way sends a negative
message to the community; the ARRL would have have been better off by
submitting the proposal without seeking feedback than by seeking
feedback and then ignoring it.
Their press release notwithstanding, the ARRL did not withdraw RM-
11306 because of "widespread misconceptions" as claimed. If the large
number of negative comments filed by hams with the FCC were
technically inaccurate, the ARRL could easily have discredited them
with the FCC. The ARRL withdrew RM-11306 because the large number of
negative commments filed against it were largely accurate. If it were
not clear that the FCC was going to reject RM-11306, the ARRL would
not have withdrawn it. The recent ex parte meeting, revised proposal,
and the resulting erratum were all signs of a last-ditch attempt to
recover, which failed.
This is all extremely unfortunate. Its polarized the community, and
generated a lot of bad will. It will make changes needed to encourage
technical innovation much more difficult to obtain.
You reap what you sow...
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], Alan NV8A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> According to the latest ARRL Letter, the League has been asking
people
> for three years now and has received many responses. Withdrawing
> RM-11306 now is one result of those responses.
>
> 73
>
> Alan NV8A
>
>
