[AMRadio] Web page appears in opposition to RM-11305


Brian Carling bcarling at cfl.rr.com
Sun Jan 15 20:31:38 EST 2006


On 15 Jan 2006 at 12:59, Phil Galasso wrote:

> > This over-regulation holds true for a lot of other realms in the U.S.
> laws,
> > but I digress. The problem is that we are so accustomed to being
> > incentivized, and over-regulated that we do not have good self-discipline
> > on the bands.
 
> What an insulting, condescending attitude toward your fellow Americans!
> Canada once had similar, although somewhat more liberal, subband
> restrictions. They lifted them a few years ago and guess what...NO
> CHAOS!

Please don't make unlucky guesses about my so-called attitude.
I agree with you. We COULD pull this off just fine.
I am only saying that we HAVEN'T because the ridiculous 
circumstances that YOU are bewailing have been foisted upon us.
Please try to understand a little better next time. 
I am starting to think that the system you propose would be better 
than the Arrl Bandwidth plan if we must have change.

I even offered to put a web page espousing the viewpoint, and yet 
you seem to think I have an attitude to the contrary.
Please read more carefully!

We have three choices as I see it and none of them is ideal:

RM-11305 - a free for all and hope we can behave.
RM-11306 - the ARRL idiocy
RM-00000 = Leave things alone.

I think I probably now prefer RM-11305 over RM-11306.
But RM-00000 would be OK too so long as ALL THREE
of these get a clause that includes allowing AM and CW forever,
AND a clause to rescind the stupid rule allowing unattended
QRM generators to run roughshod over everything else.

We can create enough of our own mode wars with 
Canadians pumping slop bucket QRM
 into the 40m CW sub-band, and turf wars on 75m phone!

It's going to be interesting to see how all of this tug-o-war plays 
out between the various groups that have their conflicting
ideas set in stone.




More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 18 Oct 2017.