Fw: Re: [CW] Re: Last chance to comment on Phone expansion

[HSHK]

=0D
I think W4ZV says it very well here....=0D
=0D
=0D
de KA8VIT=0D
=0D
=0D
-------Original Message-------=0D
=0D
From: Bill Tippett=0D
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 10:54:20=0D
To: cw@mailman.qth.net=0D
Subject: Re: [CW] Re: Last chance to comment on Phone expansion=0D
=0D
K4KYV wrote:=0D
>Recall that before Riley came on the scene, the local SSB group COULD HA=
VE =0D
set right down on 14,010 with impunity, presently existing legal subbands=
 =0D
notwithstanding.=0D
=0D
Well of course you can always violate any law including murder=0D
if you are willing to suffer the consequences... You are saying there=0D
were no consequences to violating FCC laws prior to Riley but that is=0D
really not true. 160M is the only band where they could have legally =0D
done that without violating the law and risking enforcement action.=0D
The only change Riley made was to begin enforcing voluntary bandplans,=0D
which are not necessary on bands with legal mode segmentation.=0D
=0D
Surely you are not advocating we ignore laws. If we do, we =0D
will soon become no better than our good buddies on 27 MHz. 20M and =0D
every other HF band have FCC-mandated mode segmentation per Part =0D
97.305 (c). You seldom see modes out of place on any band except 160=0D
today, but I guarantee you will begin seeing it on ALL bands if the=0D
FCC were to remove all mode segmentation. Now please tell me again how=0D
having the FCC going around chasing people who violate voluntary =0D
bandplans is going to reduce their workload? A very foolish idea =0D
which has been proven NOT to work on 160 for the past 15+ years...=0D
and now we want to repeat the mistake on all other bands? If the FCC =0D
wants guraranteed job security for Riley, this would certainly do it!=0D
Speaking a taxpayer, this would be a very stupid waste of resouces.=0D
=0D
ARRL is very schizophrenic on this issue. Today we have mode=0D
segmentation on every HF band except 160, then ARRL proposes NO mode=0D
segmentation for the new 5 MHz band, and now they propose modifications=0D
in RM-10413 which endorse continuing segmentation in the proposed changes=
=2E =0D
I believe even the FCC must be wondering what ARRL's true position is=0D
on mode segmentation...they are totally inconsistent in their actions.=0D
I just hope the FCC remembers that once the genie is out of the bottle, =0D
it may be very hard to put back in (i.e. 11 meters and CB radio).=0D
Today we have the FCC to thank for the worldwide interference from =0D
illegal AM stations all over the 10 meter CW band...tomorrow it COULD =0D
be your local AM net buddies on 14010 if mode segmentation is removed. =0D
=0D
73, Bill W4ZV=20

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/related
  multipart/alternative
    text/plain (text body -- kept)
    text/html
  image/gif
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed.
Please post in Plain-Text only.---