RM 11306

[W2INR]

I was just visiting over here for some info on a project I was working on and was amazed that there has been no mention of the proposal 11306 presented by the ARRL on segregation by bandwidth.

If this proposal is going to effect anyone it will be the hifi sounds of the class E rigs.

I encourage all of you to take a moment and go to the FCC filing site to read some of the comments already posted and then voice your own comments in regard to this distructive proposal.


I have listed below the two url's for the comments and filing section if you wish to do so yourself.


This may be of help in observing comments:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi

In the proceeding box just type in the RM number your are interested in.

'and this link for filing your comments:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

When referring to 11306 you must type it in as RM-11306

If you do not understand the system or feel uncomfortable with the filing site please fire off your comments to - - - -

stoprm11306@amfone.net. .

Include your comments ( a paragraph or two and your legal name, address with your call as listed in the QRZ Database. I will file your comments for you.

Everyone, please, comment. Your input is critical.

G/W2INR


Here is the link to photos on my E class rig which should be done by the end of February

http://amfone.net/Gallery2/v/stations/W2INR/Eclass/

[KF2VM]

Hi Gary, I was reading the proposal on the link and I'm not sure I understood all facets of it. From what I think I read is that they are making an exception for usage of A.M., allowing us 9 kc of bandwith. At least it is what I think it's saying. This might be a blessing in disguise. Just the fact that they are willing to consider the needs of the A.M. community. I realise 9 is pretty narrow, but compared to the original 3.4 it is great. The door may be open to suggestions of maybe 12 or 15 kc. I want to add a comment, but I don't know if I fully understand the proposal. I'm afraid if we take an immediate hard stance, we will look like Glenn Baxter did in his filings during the power limit proposals of the late 80's. I'm not saying I'm happy with 9kc. I'm just wondering if we can verbalize the comments in a way that we are greatful that they even considered the A.M. community this time. Still, I might be misunderstanding the proposal. JAMIE