[arrl-odv:29020] Article on FCC Visit
Heads up in case you get questions regarding the article just posted on our website about our visit to FCC. http://www.arrl.org/news/president-rick-roderick-k5ur-heads-arrl-group-on-fc... 73Rick - K5UR
And absolutely nothing about what was discussed and passed 14-1 at the July meeting. Makes me think that the whole motion and vote was a giant sham and it seems as though the only thing we are getting out of this is the removal of the 300 baud limit with the band planning piece not even discussed with the FCC. In other words, back to square one with 16-239 and RM-11706. “As if it never even happened.” Ria N2RJ On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 1:28 PM Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
Heads up in case you get questions regarding the article just posted on our website about our visit to FCC.
http://www.arrl.org/news/president-rick-roderick-k5ur-heads-arrl-group-on-fc...
73 Rick - K5UR _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I'm with Ria here, at least if what I'm reading is really accurate and complete. You will recall that it was decided by a 14:1 Board vote in July that we needed to move to put wide-band digital, and both wide-band and narrow-band ACDS all into the same sandbox to protect narrow-band digital, addressing concerns contained within RM-11831. Rick re-initiated the Band Planning committee specifically to look at these digital-band allocations, and was a fast reaction to ARFSI's "write your director" campaign that pained us all. That all seems to have been forgotten. As a team, the committee has put a lot of work into this allocation project, and continue to do so. The digital ham community, ARFSI, and proponents of RM-11831 are expecting results from us, as they should be. With the apparent omission of this important topic as a part of the ongoing FCC discussions I certainly hope the committee's hard work is not all in vain. 73; Mike W7VO
On November 26, 2019 at 12:53 PM "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
And absolutely nothing about what was discussed and passed 14-1 at the July meeting.
Makes me think that the whole motion and vote was a giant sham and it seems as though the only thing we are getting out of this is the removal of the 300 baud limit with the band planning piece not even discussed with the FCC.
In other words, back to square one with 16-239 and RM-11706. “As if it never even happened.”
Ria N2RJ
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 1:28 PM Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org > wrote:
> > Heads up in case you get questions regarding the article just posted on our website about our visit to FCC.
http://www.arrl.org/news/president-rick-roderick-k5ur-heads-arrl-group-on-fc...
73 Rick - K5UR _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
> _______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (3)
-
k5ur＠aol.com -
Michael Ritz -
rjairam＠gmail.com