[Lowfer] No LF ham band in US

[John Davis]

> But have you also considered that the
>negative decision may have more to do with these post 9-11 times than
>real technical merit

Precisely.  And that's what's so sad about it.  Rather than basing decisions
on technical realities, we're doing them in a way that only fosters MORE
siege mentality.

>>Or for that matter, what does it say about the American government's
>faith in its radio amateurs?
>
>It's not addressing that and that was not the issue in the 137
>proposal, nor by extension.

On the face of it, I think it became the whole issue!  Shouldn't have been,
of course, but that's what happened.

Where we stood at this time last year, the FCC had turned down the 30kHz
wide 1750m band "at this time" on the same grounds that have now been
applied to the much skinnier 2200m proposal.  As part of the comments phase,
there were suggestions that (if anyone seriously believed ham operation
might cause a problem, and if the power squatters are just too strapped for
cash to free up a couple of kHz of spectrum) there could be some way for
hams to make use of the industry database of PLC frequencies to avoid
conflicts.

Well, they apparently believe (a) that there is enough risk, despite
perfectly good numbers to the contrary and the evidence of the rest of the
world, that it might become a political liability; and (b) we're too
incompetent to be responsible citizens.  Among other things that would make
this post way too long...

>Sure, John, ask them when the rates will be going up to pay for added
>security.

I'll do that, Peter.  But I'm worried they may have an answer ready for that
one.  :)

John