There has been talk about the need to educate our members about the "need" for our previously proposed regulation-by-bandwidth-with-defined-sub-bands petition. I'd like to volunteer to be a guinea pig for an education program. Let's break off a tiny chunk of our proposal, and maybe some of you can educate me concerning its value to both Amateur Radio and American society as a whole. Let's start only with the 10-meter band, which extends from 28.0 to 29.7 MHz. The ARRL petition requested that the FCC allocate the band as follows: 28000 - 28050 200 Hz bandwidth 28050 - 28300 500 Hz bandwidth 28300 - 28500 3000 Hz bandwidth including novices 28500 - 29000 3000 Hz bandwidth 29000 - 29700 16000 Hz bandwidth In explaining the need for this detail, please consider the following: In almost all other countries of the world, the governments do not regulate the internal distribution of modes or activities inside the Amateur bands. Amateurs determine what modes are used in what portions of the bands themselves. For example, Canada's regulation of the 10-meter band permits use of 28000 - 29700 by stations using up to 20 kHz bandwidth, with no further government-imposed sub-band restrictions. In the United States, no government-imposed mode or internal sub-band restrictions are imposed on operation in the 160-meter band. Amateurs distribute themselves throughout the band with a minimum of conflict. Does the FCC desire to be deeply involved with details of activity inside Amateur bands? Riley Hollingsworth, in a recent speech at Dayton, urged all radio amateurs to cooperate more and depend less on the FCC to solve their operating issues. See http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/06/01/100/ With 1.7 MHz of spectrum available between 28000 and 29700, there is essentially as much available space in the 10-meter band as there is in all the lower bands combined. An article in the recent "Newsline," that brought up use-it-or-lose-it train of thought, just commented on 28085 attracting large numbers of unlicensed truckers and free-banders. Will restricting USA Amateurs from using modes with more than 500 Hz bandwidth on 28085 help us maintain our band? The FCC recently expanded the 75-meter phone band, and in doing so eliminated the ability of lower class operators to use CW and digital modes above 3600. Was the restricting of those who occasionally would have used frequencies above 3600 either necessary or even desirable? Education Request: The ARRL proposed that the FCC get involved in the detailed sub-band allocation of frequencies on the 10-meter band. It would be presumed that the FCC should then be concerned with enforcing operation to follow that detail. Please enlighten me about the benefits to the Amateur Radio service of involving the FCC in the detailed allocation and enforcement thereof of sub-bands in the 10-meter band. Please include consideration of need for possible future changes, and the need to go through the FCC for such changes. Please enlighten me about the benefits to American society as a whole of funding the FCC to do what other societies have offloaded to the Amateur Radio spectrum users themselves. Please include costs of maintaining, updating, and enforcing such rules. In the specific case of the 10-meter band, why do we need any detailed internal mode or bandwidth regulation by government at all? Why can't we be like Canada and all the other countries, and just allow operation using bandwidths up to some maximum, like 16 or 20 kHz? This will enable me to better defend such actions in front of the groups that I address, and additionally prepare the League for educating our membership. Thank you. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA