[DCboatanchors] OPPOSE RM-11306

[Brian Carling]

Well Tom, I saw ONE good explanation for why so few people 
bother commenting. Apparently a lot of guys are 
DELIBERATELY not commenting, and here is why:

A number of amateurs feel and perceive quite strongly that 
they are  wasting their time with both a sold out ARRL and 
sold out FCC. The high bidders have more money in this 
particular eBay-style scandal.

Both the League and the Commission seem nowadays to give 
LIP SERVICE to taking input from people so that they can say 
that they have "followed the law,"  and then do
whatever they darn well please!

I am just passign this opinion on from others who have written 
it to me in private e-mails, so I can't say I imagined it nor that I
originated the line of thought. It does seem to make sense 
though when you look at the strange and self-destructive 
behavior of the ARRL recently.

In the case of ARRL I don't know if this pattern has been going 
on for a long time or not.  I used to have a LOT of respect for 
our League and I always believed that they acted in the best
interest of amateur radio.

That dream has been shattered with their behavior over the 
past 3 or 4 years. I have defended the ARRL for years against 
those who criticized and brought disagreement or harsh 
criticism, but I am finally beginning to see why.

After the Digital Committee's disgusting performance and 
the policy that was then forged in support of RM-11306 which 
is the  Winlink dream (i.e. nightmare) scenario, I think we 
should maybe all see if we can apply for VE0 callsigns...

I made my comments anyway!

On 5 Feb 2006 at 19:49, Tom Norris wrote:

> Already done it, both it and 11305.  The nation and radio as we know  
> it is safe now. :-)
> 
> I can sort of see '305 bringing us "more in line with the rest of the  
> ITU world" sort of.  I don't see some of the 80-going-on-10 year olds  
> that hang out on 75 using it properly. Yea, that's my worse case  
> example.
> 
> I honestly thing '306 was to get Winlink *away* from where it was  
> causing so much interference. But, regardless, there are so many  
> holes in the proposal there is no way I could have slept at night if  
> I'd written the fcc and said I was in favor of it.  No taking sides,  
> it was just flawed from the start in too many ways to even begin to  
> talk about.  Thats not even counting being ramrodded in under cover  
> of darkness in hopes no one would notice.
> 
> What's sad in the case of both is that they each only have a puny few  
> hundred comments.  Where the hell is everyone?  At the very least  
> they use the "short comment" and just say "I'm against it" (or for  
> it)  That's all it takes.   There's NO EFFORT involved.
> 
> Oh well, I'm preaching to the converted.
> 
> 
> On Feb 5, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Brian Carling wrote:
> 
> > Guys please read this. My greatest concern with the absurd
> > ARRL Proposal RM-11306 is not just about the AM restrictions
> > but ALSO about the annoying WINLINK PACTOR robot stations
> > that are already devastating communications on the CW and
> > digital sub-bands, being allowed to then spread their trash all
> > over the phone bands too. I am not against digital on HF.
> >
> > This is a very important issue and one of ARRL's worst blunders
> > in our lifetime. Please distribute this note widely:
> >
>