I agree with some of the points Kay made in the discussion. The Board spent a very lengthy discussion on various options before voting on the Novice Refarming Petition. It was something we took a lot of time to think through the proposal before submitting. We do not have the time to obtain input from members and analyze the data. This would require a lot more time than we have. I feel the best option is to re-submit the same proposal as before. In that proposal should solve most of the problems with 80/75 meters or some of the them. Now, if the FCC refuse our proposal then they are the "bad" guys. Henry R. Leggette, WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: w3kd@aol.com To: arrl-odv Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:06 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:14832] Re: Petition to Reconsider? Kay, good points, all. Sadly, however, there is only a very limited time to file (or not file) a petition for reconsideration. It would be due by the 15th of December. Since the timetable is statutory, FCC can't waive it. So we must fish or cut bait by the 15th of December; a short fuse indeed for membership input. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: n3kn@comcast.net To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 7:17 PM Subject: RE: Petition to Reconsider? Recently the Board has taken care to seek and consider input from the whole Amateur community before proposing far-reaching changes such as regulation by bandwidth. Also, as I recall there was extensive discussion and debate within the Board about various options before a vote was taken on what should be in the Novice Refarming petition. The Board really took its time working on those proposals before they were filed. After the release of the R&O in 04-140, we asked Amateurs to contribute their comments and Directors are mulling over that input. Now it's been suggested that the Board should do a very significant policy re-think about the 75/80 meter band, to ask the FCC to do something that was not included or implied in our original Novice Refarming petition and which may bear in various ways on our already-filed petition for regulation by bandwidth. Is there sufficient time to seek and consider members' input on this idea within the time available to prepare and file a Petition for Reconsideration? Is there sufficient time to analyze how this change of position would affect the reasoning underlying our regulation by bandwidth petition? Is this the right time-frame for making well-considered policy? I'd feel a lot better about taking up this idea if we had time to gather and analyze input from members, analyze any effects on the bandwidth petition, and debate both the facts and the philosophy in person at a Board meeting. But we don't have that much time. I think many members would feel the Board was kinda pulling a fast one and springing something on them out of the blue, which just isn't how we've been doing things on these major petitions affecting spectrum management and operating privileges. Be it a good idea or a bad idea, it's definitely not a trivial idea, and I don't have a real good feeling about our making such a major policy jump in this kind of time frame. This ain't picking a badge color. Have a good Thanksgiving! 73 - Kay N3KN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.