Yes and yes, Jim. I thought I'd covered all three points (including the thank-you) in the last paragraph, but I can strengthen the last point a bit. 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Weaver, Jim K8JE (DIR, GL) Sent: Thu 10/21/2004 1:08 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11475] Re: Executive Committee recommendations bandwidth petition All, I have two questions and a suggestion regarding the present fine tuning of the regulating by bandwidth proposal. QUESTIONS 1. Do I understand correctly that it is not yet being hammered into a formal petition? The title of the message might suggest it is. 2. Do I understand correctly that we will have an opportunity to review and, if deemed appropriate, make further changes in the proposal at the January meeting? SUGGESTION 1. I think it would be a good idea openly to thank (in no uncertain terms) the members who shared comments with us for the time, effort and dedication they clearly showed in sharing these comments with us. I see absolutely no downside to going just a bit out of the way to humanize this effort and tell the membership we like it when they and us collaborate to achieve a common goal on behalf of Amateur Radio. Tnx, 73, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je@arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:51 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11470] Re: Executive Committee recommendations bandwidth petition ARRL Board: At last Saturday's Executive Committee meeting I was asked to draft a summary of the discussion of the bandwidth petition, run it past the EC, and then to share it with the Board before releasing it to members (and others). Here is what we plan to release. Dave K1ZZ P.S. to EC members: I changed the wording of the first two "bullets" from the draft you saw earlier. I made the changes because I sensed some of you thought the wording needed some clarification. _____ The ARRL Executive Committee devoted much of its October 16 meeting to a discussion of comments received on the draft petition to the FCC to seek regulation of subbands by bandwidth rather than by mode of emission. In response to a synopsis of the petition and the proposed rules changes being available on the ARRL Web site, several hundred comments have been received from ARRL members and other amateurs from around the world. The Executive Committee found considerable support for the concept of the petition, along with constructive suggestions for revisions to reduce both the impact of the changes on current amateur operations, as well as possible unintended consequences. The Executive Committee agreed to submit to the ARRL Board of Directors, for consideration at its January meeting, several recommended amendments to the proposed rules changes. These include: * Restoration of the existing rules that permit automatically controlled digital stations in narrow HF subbands. In other words, these rules would remain the same, and automatic packet (and other digital modes) could continue. * A rule prohibiting so-called semi-automatic digital operation (automatic control, but only in response to a communication initiated by a "live" operator) on frequencies where phone is permitted below 28 MHz. This addresses the concern that "robot" digital stations might take over the phone bands. * A segment for 3-kHz bandwidth (no phone) of 10.135-10.150 MHz to accommodate existing and planned future digital operations. * Deletion of the word "continuous" from the description of test transmissions that are authorized on most frequencies above 51 MHz. * Simplification of proposed changes to §97.309 to clarify that FCC-licensed amateur stations may use any published digital code as long as other rules are observed. These recommendations are not intended to be the final word on the draft petition, but are intended to address the major issues raised to date. The Executive Committee members expressed their appreciation for the constructive input that has been received, and the hope that these recommendations will broaden the support for proceeding with the filing of a petition sometime in 2005.