Tom, there was no memo to the EC. There was a telephone discussion of some length. I know, I was sitting in my car during the whole thing. 73, Chris W3KD/7 -----Original Message----- From: frenaye@pcnet.com To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Sent: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:57 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:15423] Re:RM-11306 At 11:35 AM 4/13/2007, John Bellows wrote:

In ODV 15416 we are asked to review the attached Memorandum and EC Resolution and provide input. While the Memo notes there is some urgency in this matter it appears the request is for input rather than an immediate vote.

Jay's lengthy comments parallel most of my own thinking and questions, and he said it better than I would have. Can we have a copy of whatever memo might have been sent to the EC prior to their action (from Chris, Dave or Joel?)? I also think we will take a very big PR hit if we withdraw the petition. It still might be worth doing but I'd like to hear more. Is there a bit more information about the EC discussions pro/con available? Thinking about it last night I was ready to vote "no" but if that will cause the FCC to deny the petition it would take several years before the issue could reasonably be brought to them again. Why couldn't we urge them to come out with a NPRM based on our "drop back and punt" presentation to have regulation by bandwidth from 28 Mhz and up? Or, why couldn't the FCC be asked to issue a Notice of Inquiry, based on the questions raised by the various comments. They must also understand that regulation by bandwidth is getting somewhat mixed up in a "digital vs analog" war, and a "resistance to change" attitude in general. I'd like to hear more discussion. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.