I agree with Chris, and Tom, too. 73, K5UR -----Original Message----- From: Chris Imlay <w3kd@aol.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Mon, Mar 29, 2010 8:26 am Subject: [arrl-odv:18762] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz It strikes me that Tom is correct (unfortunately). We certainly were not happy about the decisions that the FCC made in Docket 04-140 concerning 80 meters, and in fact we filed a reconsideration petition (which was denied in Docket 05-235 in December of 2006). Joel Harrison complained about that to then (Acting) FCC Chairman Michael Copps about it. Of course, nothing happened, but all this is relatively recent (in FCC time) and the chances of getting a change now, this soon after the 05-235 Report and Order are questionable. While one might think that there is no harm in asking, if FCC was to deny a petition based on the fact that 05-235 was sufficiently recent that a further change petition is untimely (i.e. repetitive) would set the effort back a good ways. We will do whatever the Board wishes, of course, but the price of failure here in terms of time lost before we could ask again is potentially high, as Tom says. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sun, Mar 28, 2010 10:20 am Subject: [arrl-odv:18755] Re: Returning CW Nets and Digital Modes to 3600 - 3750 kHz At 10:08 AM 3/25/2010, Mickey Cox wrote: The ham community is not ready to make wholesale changes in our regulations egarding modes/subbands, etc., but we might be successful in convincing enough olks to support opening up 100 or 150 kHz on 80, perhaps at least on a trial asis of two or three years. Mickey - I don't think the holdup would be the ham community, it would be the FCC. It ould be very unusual for them to re-examine an issue they decided less than ive years ago, and especially unusual for them to reverse themselves, even hough I agree that they made a bad mistake. I also think you'll find most oard members agree that it was badly handled by the FCC. So the question is really when do we go back and raise the question again - and or that I'd defer to Chris/Kay/Dave for their expertise. If we go too early, t will just push the time for possible change out another five or more years... lus, as we learned even in the "simple" spread spectrum NPRM that just came ut, we can ask for something that seems reasonable and the FCC will screw us... I think K5UR trademarked that phrase. ) I wouldn't stir the pot in the amateur community unless we really think there is path to success. Nothing worse than raising expectations and then looking mpotent - which we are sometimes. -- Tom ==== -mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ om Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444