Regulation by Bandwidth: RM-11305 and RM-11306
 

FCC has assigned RM numbers to two petitions filed concerning the
subject of
"regulation by bandwidth". They a

RM-11305

filed by the "Communications Think Tank"

which may be viewed at:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...t=6517982 317


and

RM-11306

filed by ARRL

which may be viewed at:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...t=6518181 567

Comments close February 9, 2006 - looks like FCC gave only 30 days.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Regulation by Bandwidth: RM-11305 and RM-11306
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
FCC has assigned RM numbers to two petitions filed concerning the
subject of
"regulation by bandwidth". They a

RM-11305

filed by the "Communications Think Tank"

which may be viewed at:


http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...t=6517982 317


and

RM-11306

filed by ARRL

which may be viewed at:


http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...t=6518181 567

Comments close February 9, 2006 - looks like FCC gave only 30 days.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Hello, Jim

After seeing the words "good judgement" several time, I gave up. I suspect
only about 20% of the operators around use good judgement all of the time
and likely 10% never use good judgement .... :(



73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Regulation by Bandwidth: RM-11305 and RM-11306
 

Jim Hampton wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
FCC has assigned RM numbers to two petitions filed concerning the
subject of
"regulation by bandwidth". They a

RM-11305

filed by the "Communications Think Tank"

which may be viewed at:


http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...t=6517982 317


and

RM-11306

filed by ARRL

which may be viewed at:


http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...t=6518181 567

Comments close February 9, 2006 - looks like FCC gave only 30 days.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Hello, Jim

After seeing the words "good judgement" several time, I gave up. I suspect
only about 20% of the operators around use good judgement all of the time
and likely 10% never use good judgement .... :(

Hello Jim,

It's amazing how a basically good idea can be messed up so
thoroughly....

The "CTT" proposal is even worse than the ARRL one. Basically it calls
for
simply eliminating all the mode/subband rules. Free For All....

They allegedly did a band-occupancy study - which consisted of scanning
the
HF bands over a 12 hour period of one day. As if that would be a
representative sample.

Gotta love think tanks.....


The ARRL proposal has some good points, but they manage to ignore a lot
of
valid concerns like robot operation, and come up with a proposal that
few will support
as it stands.


I dunno what it means that FCC is only allowing 30 days for comments,
but I hope it's an indication they think both of these are bad ideas...

73 de Jim, N2EY

Regulation by Bandwidth: RM-11305 and RM-11306
 

wrote:

They allegedly did a band-occupancy study - which consisted of scanning
the
HF bands over a 12 hour period of one day. As if that would be a
representative sample.

On a day with low sunspot activity in the middle of the week, no
doubt.

The ARRL proposal has some good points, but they manage to ignore a lot
of valid concerns like robot operation, and come up with a proposal that
few will support as it stands.

I dunno what it means that FCC is only allowing 30 days for comments,
but I hope it's an indication they think both of these are bad ideas...

I doubt that 30 day window will give them a whole lot of time to
make that "big" of a consideration, Jim.

My concern is that there are already too few folks out there who
really understand what their bandwidth requirements are now.

I am also afraid that they will OVER-simplify the regs to
something like "x" khz or narrower signals below "this" landmark, "y"
khz or wider signals above". The list of potential nightmares is
endless.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Regulation by Bandwidth: RM-11305 and RM-11306
 

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

They allegedly did a band-occupancy study - which consisted of scanning
the
HF bands over a 12 hour period of one day. As if that would be a
representative sample.

On a day with low sunspot activity in the middle of the week, no
doubt.

On a Saturday. Read the proposal for the exact date.

The ARRL proposal has some good points, but they manage to ignore a lot
of valid concerns like robot operation, and come up with a proposal that
few will support as it stands.

I dunno what it means that FCC is only allowing 30 days for comments,
but I hope it's an indication they think both of these are bad ideas...

I doubt that 30 day window will give them a whole lot of time to
make that "big" of a consideration, Jim.

So we should get our comments in.

My concern is that there are already too few folks out there who
really understand what their bandwidth requirements are now.

Doesn't matter. What matters is what the FCC thinks they are, and how
best to regulate.

I am also afraid that they will OVER-simplify the regs to
something like "x" khz or narrower signals below "this" landmark, "y"
khz or wider signals above". The list of potential nightmares is
endless.

The CTT proposal simply removes all landmarks. The ARRL proposal moves
them and changes some definitions.

Remember that most of the rest of the world doesn't have subbands by
mode.

73 de Jim, N2EY