K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Even though I disagree with almost all of it, I
think it would be better if it were sent to FCC
as a formal proposal. Because it would then get
a lot more attention than it would as a comment.

Doesn't that seem sort of risky to you?

Sure, but that's not the issue.

( "I spell my name...DANGER!")*

You don't (mostly) agree with the thing,
but you think it would be better for
FCC to give it "a lot more attention"?

Yes. You see, I have this wild concept that even ideas I
disagree with are better off being discussed than being
hidden away. You know, that whole "democracy" thing...

I think you have come up with a proposal that represents a
clear, coherent and concise point of view. That I don't
agree with most of it is immaterial; I think it at least
deserves the same exposure and discussion as the 18 other
proposals, most of which are far less clear, coherent or
concise. (like the one that would put beginners on 160
with limited power - wassup with THAT? Or the NCI and
first NCVEC proposals, that are tunnelvision to the max.
Or the second NCVEC proposal...)

IOW, I think your proposal deserves to be discussed in a
far wider forum than rrap.

If the US amateur community as a whole rejects it, then no
one can say it wasn't presented at the appropriate time.

If the US amateur community as a whole accepts it, then
no one can say it was the result of some small group
pushing their ideas on others.

The proposal of the "think tank" contains only one element
of your proposal. You were *years* ahead of them!

There's still time to put it into proposal form and send it to FCC as
a formal proposal.

Why not?

Suppose it were sent to FCC, and they gave it an RM number.
And suppose it drew a lot of comments that supported it. Say
75% in support.

Who could then say it wasn't what the amateur community wants?

73 de Jim, N2EY