[CW] ARRL and FCC proposal

[Rich Dailey]

>4) Somebody in the law firm that works for ARRL messed up and sent the FCC a 
>document that had mistakes in it. Biggest mistake was that it showed 97.221 
>(c) as being deleted, when it was meant to be retained. Nobody at FCC picked up 
>on the mistakes - they just put the document on ECFS.

This speaks volumes, I think.

>6) Opposition to all versions of RM-11306 seems so widespread and growing 
>that it's a wonder ARRL even bothered.

History shows that widespread opposition doesn't mean much to the ARRL.

N8UX.