Perhaps I am confused (wouldn't be the first time), but it appears to me that RM-11392 was filed by N5RFX rather than KQ6XA. And in fact, KQ6XA has been posting on the Winlink reflector that amateurs should file comments against RM-11392 but use those comments as a vehicle to push for abolishing the 300-baud limit on data transmissions. Here is here latest comment from the Winlink reflector: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:30 pm (PST) The FCC Petition RM-11392 opens the door for re-examination of the Automatic Sub Bands. Individuals may comment to FCC again with information such as this, below, that has not been sent before. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA New FCC comments: 1. I oppose the petitioner's proposed method of changing the automatically controlled station data subbands. 2. The use of automatically controlled data stations has increased tremendously since the original FCC rule was written. We do need change, to increase the spectrum available for automatically controlled stations. It would help alleviate crowding and facilitate efficiency on the amateur radio bands, to widen the automatically controlled data subbands to the following frequency band segments: 1805kHz-1825kHz, 3575-3600kHz, 7100-7125kHz, 10130-10150kHz, 14090-14099kHz, 14101-14150kHz, 18090-18110kHz, 21090-21150kHz, 24900-24930kHz, 28100-28189kHz. P.S. I wouldn't worry about anyone accusing us of using KQ6XA as a front -- she would put an end to that in a big hurry. As Director Vallio can attest, she wants **nothing** to do with the ARRL. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 09:44 PM 12/27/2007, K8JE wrote:

I can just see the posts on QRZ.com and other places regarding RM-11392:

-----

"Dave Sumner, K1ZZ and his ARRL Board sycophants are at it again. They've gotten a former member to present this petition which would go a long way toward getting the FCC to adopt Regulation by Bandwidth in spite of the overwhelming mandate given by League members and other US amateurs to the ARRL's own plan. Did I say it was a former member who is pushing Regulation by Bandwidth? Read this as being a member who dropped her membership for the sole purpose of deluding hams into thinking she is no longer being manipulated by ARRL. I think you can figure out what really happened, though.

"This is another shallow attempt at deceit by Sumner. First we have the petition to FCC and later we have the thinly veiled attempt to legitimize band planning through the new Region 2 band plan!

"s/A disgruntled truly former member of ARRL who has seen the light."

------

To set the record straight, In no way I do not believe this is being done. Do I believe we just might see this tactic in the near future? Sure could. There are sick and treacherous people among the US population which is the same population from which the us ham population is drawn.

Am I neurotic? You be the judge based upon actions during recent months.

73. HNY

Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je@arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is!

-----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:19 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16286] Re: KQ6XA & RM-11392

At 11:58 PM 12/26/2007, Coy Day wrote:

...

Anyone know what Bonnie is up to now and what her problems are with RM-11392?

Your message is the first I've heard of it, maybe it's something being discussed within the Exec Committee? I found nothing on our web site - the one where we wanted to be the best AR news source... why not?

A quick google search turned up: http://www.southgatearc.org/news/december2007/bandwidth_band_plan.htm

Is it something ARRL will be filing on? Looks like the deadline for filing is the Friday of our January meeting

-- Tom

===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

Andy Oppel andy@andyoppel.com andy_oppel@alamedanet.net