Sorry for the duplication to officers and directors, but there is a need to bring the vice directors into the loop. Chris is in the process, right this minute, of filing the attached erratum to the ex parte notice. Here is an explanation I have drafted for use in responding to complaints and inquiries. I hope you find it useful. Dave K1ZZ Thanks for your message. Here is some background on the subject you raised. In July 2002 the ARRL Board of Directors adopted the following policy: "At the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode." The Board's objective was to update rules that were written long before the development of the current generation of digital modes so that digital emissions can be appropriately regulated in the future, while impacting traditional modes as little as possible. Turning that statement of principle into a detailed petition proved to be no easy task. The Board received input from an ad hoc committee as well as staff, and twice solicited input directly from the ARRL membership. Hundreds of comments were received each time and helped inform the Board's discussions. Finally, at its July 2005 meeting the Board concluded its review of a draft petition and authorized its filing, following final review by the Executive Committee. The resulting petition was filed on November 14, 2005 and was designated RM-11306 by the FCC, after which additional comments were filed by individuals directly with the FCC. Once the FCC had dealt with two outstanding proceedings, WT Dockets 04-140 and 05-235, we realized that the bandwidth petition was the next major Amateur Radio item in their hopper. On reviewing the RM-11306 petition, the comments, and the rules changes adopted in Dockets 04-140 and 05-235 it was apparent that some of the proposals contained in the petition had been affected by the changes adopted in the other two proceedings. It was also apparent that some aspects of the petition remained controversial. After reviewing the situation at its January 2007 meeting, the ARRL Board authorized General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD to determine what changes to the petition had to be made to align it with the new FCC rules, as well as which aspects of the petition were not controversial and could reasonably be expected to be included in an FCC Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Chris did so, and a meeting was held with FCC staff on February 13. As are all such meetings, this was made a matter of public record by the filing of a notice with the FCC Secretary that immediately became part of the online record in RM-11306. The FCC staff was provided with a shortened list, or subset, of proposed rule changes from that contained in RM-11306. The list is included with the notice of the meeting. Because the proposals affecting the bands above 28 MHz had not aroused much controversy, they were retained in the shortened list. Regulation by bandwidth rather than by mode of emission remains controversial below 28 MHz because of perceived potential impact on established operating patterns, so these proposals were removed from the list with one narrow exception. The exception is necessary because, as discussed on page 11 of the RM-11306 petition, under the existing rules there is presently no effective bandwidth limit on HF digital operations. Digital emissions using multiple carriers, such as OFDM, can be designed for any bandwidth while staying within the existing rules. So, the subset of proposed rule changes given to the FCC on February 13 includes a bandwidth limit of 3 kHz on RTTY and data emissions below 28 MHz. It is important to understand that this does not increase the allowed bandwidth for RTTY and data emissions; it actually represents a new limitation that accommodates existing practice but prevents future monopolization of large segments of our narrow MF/HF bands by a single digital station. Also, the limit would not apply to phone emissions. Some confusion has resulted from an item that, through oversight, was not deleted when the list of proposed rule changes was shortened. Because RM-11306 had proposed that bandwidths in most of the band segments now used for CW and RTTY be limited to 200 Hz and 500 Hz respectively, the existing 500-Hz bandwidth limit that applies to certain automatically controlled RTTY/data stations was redundant and could be dropped. However, because the subset of proposed rule changes does not substitute regulation by bandwidth for regulation by mode of emission, the 500-Hz limit needs to be retained. General Counsel Imlay has filed an erratum with a corrected list of proposed rule changes that makes it clear there should be no change to the existing Section 97.221. We regret the error. Some amateurs have observed that the subset of proposed rule changes provides less protection to CW, RTTY and other narrowband modes than was afforded by the ARRL's proposals in RM-11306. This is true. However, it is not true that less protection is afforded than is the case with the existing rules. In fact, protection against interference from wide digital modes would be increased, not decreased, by adoption even of the subset. The ARRL Board, having studied the situation literally for years, continues to support the principles of regulation by bandwidth that are contained in the original RM-11306 petition. Regulation by bandwidth provides a better regulatory framework, not only for the introduction of future digital emissions but for the protection of traditional narrowband modes as well. By providing the FCC with a subset of the modifications proposed in RM-11306 the ARRL has offered an alternative that, it is hoped, will make it easier for the FCC to move at least part of the way in that direction. David Sumner, K1ZZ Chief Executive Officer, ARRL March 22, 2007 -----Original Message----- From: Andy Oppel [mailto:andy@andyoppel.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:57 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15303] Re: FW: [QRP-L] ARRL assault on (QRP) CW

For those of you who have not seen this, Mr. Teller is continuing his campaign against just about everything we propose. And as usual, he is distorting the facts to fit his personal agenda.

-- Andy Oppel, N6AJO Pacific Division Vice Directory

----- Original Message ----- From: "Skip Teller" <hteller@comcast.net> To: <qrp-l@mailman.qth.net> Cc: "Howard Teller" <hteller@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:30 PM Subject: [QRP-L] Re: ARRL assault on (QRP) CW

I urge all of you not to be complacent about this matter!

As an invited member of the original ARRL committee from which the "bandwidth petition" sprang, I saw early on that the real intent of the committee, chaired by the originator of Winlink, was to turn control of the HF bands over to Winlink Email robots, and that "segmentation by bandwidth" was merely a guise for doing this. I even felt it necessary to issue a dissenting recommendation, which you may read here:

http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html

Now the ARRL is trying again, and in so doing, divulging the true purpose behind their original "bandwidth petition", by taking advantage of the fact that CW has been dropped as a requirement, basically leaving only RTTY and Data as important modes in the eyes of the ARRL. You may notice the complete absence of CW as a mode in the table of HF modes attached to the ARRL's Ex-parte attempted modification to RM-11306, which may or may not actually be allowed, since it basically scraps the concept of segmentation by bandwidth and preserves segmentation by mode for all bands under 10m. I don't see how the FCC can accept this magnitude of change to RM-11306 without requiring a totally new petition and comment period.

However, just in case they do, I have put together a simple explanation of how to file a comment and I strongly urge each one of you to file a comment NOW if you value your ability to enjoy CW in the future. Please do not be complacent and assume everything will be OK! Just take a couple of minutes to file a comment. Here is a form to follow:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hteller/comment.htm

Lots of comments DO influence the FCC. It worked to keep the robots off the phone bands, so now we must again work to keep them from taking over the RTTY and CW activity areas.

Please help!

73, Skip KH6TY

______________________________________________________________ QRP-L mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qrp-l Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:QRP-L@mailman.qth.net

Andy Oppel andy@andyoppel.com andy_oppel@alamedanet.net