[AMRadio] Your recent comments on AM (Tannehill)


peter markavage manualman at juno.com
Fri Jan 13 15:37:08 EST 2006


Obviously, some ways of developing a draft proposal are better than
others, but you need to go back and read minute 63 or 64 from one of the
2002(or 3) BoD meetings to understand what the initial intent was. The
fact that ARRL requested comments on the initial draft proposal is indeed
fact. The fact that the President may have chose members of the "digital
committee" who had conflicts with each other, and maybe even personal
agendas,  was unfortunate. The President's position on the final draft
position is a "don't care". He had no voting rights to move the proposal
to final and then to submission to the FCC.

I'm sure 160 will survive no matter which proposal, if either, makes it
to the final FCC gate.

Pete, wa2cwa

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:59:40 -0500 "Brian Carling" <bcarling at cfl.rr.com>
writes:
> 1) They diod NOT solicit input.
> 
> 2) The decisions wer made by an ad hoc committee behind 
> closed doors that was very divided on the matter.
> 
> 3) You seem to assume that I didn't try to give them my input.
> Yes, as a member, I did on many occasions and they did not 
> even acknowledge my communications. I wrote to numerous officers and 
> Directors 
> etc. The one who DID write back said 
> he knew nothing about it but would look into it.
> 
> The President wrote me back and all he had to say was they he 
> regretted 
> having appointed the people who had dissented to his ad hoc 
> committee! 
> Two of them had resigned in disgust.
> 
> He never responded satisfactorily to my input on the specific 
> issues. 
> His mind was made up on the matter from the beginning.
> Winlink Pactor all the way and to hell with the consequences.
> 
> There was zero accountability. So now we have this absurd 
> proposal that could lead to havoc not only for AM operators,
> but especially for our CW brethren.
> 
> For example:
> http://lists.contesting.com/archives/html/Topband/2006-01/msg00132.html
> 
> On 13 Jan 2006 at 14:00, peter markavage wrote:
> 
> > There was approximately 15 months of time for you to provide 
> comments to
> > the ARRL to express your views on the draft proposals before the 
> final
> > went to the FCC.



More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 18 Dec 2017.