Brian, As I said in my email response to Jay Bellows it is a simple matter of trying to salvage something out of the FCC's error. This approach by far offers the best chance. We could file a petition for reconsideration to revert back to the original NPRM, and we would lose. Sadly, it is that simple. We cannot argue a sound justification to revert back to the NRPM at this point the FCC would not act upon it. As Chris stated to the EC and to Tom's question regarding 3650 -vs- 3635 KHz, (and the same applies to an attempt to revert back to the original NPRM) it reduces our argument from a reasoned proposal, on what amounts to administrative appeal, to nothing more than (re)negotiation. Reconsideration is not a means of attempting to renegotiate. It is a process of establishing that FCC was wrong about a portion of the order and needs to fix it. We can do that with 3635 but can't with something greater. I don't like the situation we're in regarding 80 meters, I don't like the way the FCC (Cross) did the 80 meter expansion and justified it, but there isn't a heck of a lot we can do about it other than to be smarter next time....much smarter, and Dave, Chris and I have an understanding of what we need to do better next time. Overall, with the exception of 80 meters, the decision is good and the FCC did in fact correct some of the other errors we brought to their attention. We got a lot of what we wanted out of this decision and I'm pleased. I'm not happy, though, that we didn't get everything we wanted. To quote the phrased from a Christmas sweatshirt my wife has "Dear Santa....I want it ALL". That is a topic for another strategy and battle. Right now, I want to be successful in salvaging what we can from the 80 meter mess rather than just file something that doesn't have any chance of reconciling a thing. The EC and the board agrees. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:24 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14898] Re: Resolution for Board Vote All -- I've been on travel and read these emails pretty quickly -- and admittedly did not read the resolution since I'm using an email viewer while on travel that doesn't handle attachments --, so my apologies if I'm asking something that's already been explained. Though a majority has already been secured, I have a question...I'm still not all that clear as to why we don't ask FCC to reconsider placing the lower SSB edge back to our original 3725-kHz mark as originally proposed. There seems to be some concern from our members regarding the loss of CW and digital elbowroom due to FCC dropping the phone subband way the heck down to 3600. So, why then, are we asking them to bump it up only to 3635 rather than reverting back to 3725 based on the justification provided our original Omnibus proposal (and, subsequently, based on some of the feedback we asked our members to provide)? Might this cause our membership to question our ability of sticking to our guns? Or, might this signal to FCC that they can exceed/make errors with certain future proposals and ARRL will simply renogotiate rather than ask them to literally reconsider based on what was presented our original proposal? Again, I'm a bit handicapped since I didn't read the original resolution and any of its justifications, so forgive me if I'm off-base here. 73, Brian, N5ZGT