[Fists] Refarming

[Jeff Davis]

It would appear that there may be two things of interest to the FCC in
this matter.

1. Protecting some space for modern, digital communications. Their own
comments on previous filings have been consistent with the view that
new modes, like PSK31, need room and time to catch on and grow in the
hobby. So that is one angle.

2. The other angle is the FCC reference to "lack of a consensus in the
amateur community". The ARRL's response to that was that they
conducted a poll of some 4700 people and "about 60%" agreed with their
refarming proposal. I'm no math major, but 60% of 4700 is a pitifully
small number out of 700,000 US hams...hardly sounds like a consensus
to me.

In addition, I don't think you can discount the value that amateur
radio adds to the security of these United States. I think a pretty
sound argument could be made for not changing *any* amateur allocation
of spectrum for the next few years for the simple reason that
according to our commander-in-chief, we are at war. Why should we
endanger existing communications networks that are already in place
(HF CW Nets), and that add immeasurably to our Homeland Security,
simply to allow a little more "elbow room" for voice operations?

Surely this could wait a few years while the dust settles and then a
more accurate consensus could be drawn on the best use of the current
Novice bands.

73 de Jeff, N9AVG
FISTS #6641


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan" <kf0z@n0rxd.ampr.org>
To: <fists@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:53 PM
Subject: [Fists] Refarming


Anyone have strategic thoughts about how to counter this thing? I'm
tempted
to propose splitting the difference between SSB and digital so that
digital
modes can move up and spread out and take pressure off CW segments.
73 Jan KF0Z FISTS 4373