Frank, the Op-Ed in May 2004 QST by N5RFX and the September 2004 QST editorial answer the question "Why." One thing the Board did subsequently, at the July 2005 Board Meeting, was to change the bandwidth definition from occupied to necessary bandwidth. That was an important change but its significance may not be universally recognized. It should have reassured anyone who was worried about having to measure the bandwidth of their transmitted signal or about being accused of being too broad when using an analog mode. The "other" petition was withdrawn after the FCC expanded the 75-meter phone band. 73, Dave K1ZZ/6 ________________________________ From: Frank Fallon [mailto:n2ff@optonline.net] Sent: Sun 4/29/2007 2:13 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15498] Re: RE 11306 WHY? Interesting discussion. But, what I see as missing from the dialog is WHY we need to get "regulation by bandwidth"? At this point we need to motivate the members and me. And I think I was very involved and awake for the last four years as we developed this idea and the proposal, but recently I have started to blink. What is so wrong with the current "regulation by mode" system that we need to risk ARRL's already damaged image to force this idea down the throats of the ham radio world? Will the ham radio world fall apart without it? I think we have a lot to loose if we are not successful with our second attempt.at a bandwidth proposal. SO, .... We need to answer those question first before we move forward, I feel. Is there a strong believable and compelling reason for doing this? Will the ham radio community understand that view and agree with us? I do not think that we have the answers to those questions yet. I have not seen them or heard them. I need to see them and hear them before I risk getting 2600 negative comments and almost no agreeing comments a second time around. I do believe that we all agreed that it was going to be much more difficult second time around with this idea. So why put ourselves in that position again for no good reason? The other problem I have is that I just do not trust Bill Cross and the others at the FCC to do the right thing here. Their recent performance record in this area is worse than bad. I find it hard to accept this leap of faith that they really want to do this and are on our side. I keep remembering what Cross recently did to the CW and digital regulations on 80 meters. We also seem to have lost sight of the fact that there is another regulation by bandwidth proposal out there in the wings which has not been withdrawn. That proposal essentially asks for deregulation of any mode regulations. Looking at the FCC track record in all areas in recent years I think the great minds at FCC are going to find that concept very attractive. My fear is that at the end of the day those who control Cross' strings will have him go with that idea. I just do not trust the FCC to do the right thing here or to do it the ARRL way. 73 de Frank...N2FF.......