Fred:

Re factoid 4: Are you certain that comments seeking a bandwidth restriction on 
part of the CW/data subband would be ignored?

In the discussion accompanying the NPRM, the FCC rather explicitly invited 
comments as to whether a limitation is appropriate for a portion of the bands, 
specific frequencies meriting protection, etc. provided that such were 
supported by some technical reasoning

Given that a specific question was asked, I'd think that direct responses to 
the specific question would be considered as relevant.

While I'm not schooled in the provisions of the APA, I don't think American 
regulatory bureaucracy has yet deteriorated to the point where a federal agency 
is required to ignore responses to questions they asked in the development of 
regulation.

--
Michael Adams | [email protected]

________________________________
From: Fred Jensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Aug 21, 2016 4:13 PM
To: Richard Thorne; Elecraft Reflector
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] RM-11708: CW and RTTY users please read


<factoid#4>Actions by the FCC are governed by the Administrative
Procedures Act [APA] which requires a somewhat slow process that
includes multiple opportunities for public input</factoid#4>

The matter at hand in NPRM-11708 contains exactly two questions:  1)
Should the symbol rate limit of 300/sec at 97.309(f) be eliminated?; and
2) Should a specified limit of 2.8 KHz occupied bandwidth in the RDS be
imposed?

Those are the ONLY two issues that can be decided in this proceeding.
Any comment/request outside those two issues will be ignored.  Folks,
read that again.  If you want to be heard, you must speak to those two
issues.  Anything else is irrelevant to the proceeding at hand.



______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
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
Message delivered to [email protected]

Reply via email to