[Lowfer] 136 kHz Rulemaking--Reply Period Open Until March 27

[JD]

My part-time work was awfully time consuming last week, so the final draft 
of my own comments might not be as eloquent as I hoped, but at least it's in 
the Commission's hands.  So, I see, are original comments by Jay, Warren, 
and John A.  Excellent work, and some very good points raised about the 
extent of the current experimental activity!  That's got to count for 
something.

I was also impressed by the thoroughness and the meticulous wording of the 
ARRL's comments.  That document is also in support of the 160 meter changes, 
but they did not short-change 2200 meters whatsoever!  I even note with 
considerable satisfaction that their rationale for which license classes 
should be permitted to operate at 2200m is now stated far more soundly than 
in the MF petition.  Kudos to those responsible.  The ARRL filing is at: 
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022124479

All the comments I mentioned--plus the inevitable last-minute ground swell 
of opposition from the power companies--can be found through the FCC's pages 
at:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/  Use docket number 12-338 in the 
top field of the form; then simply scroll down to the bottom and click 
Search for Comments.  (You may want to display more than 10 results per 
page, or you'll be clicking buttons to navigate between pages all night.)

This particular docket includes TONS of proposed changes that don't relate 
to amateur activity at all, so you won't have to read everything all the way 
through.  It'll become clear to you pretty quickly which filings have 
anything to do with amateur radio and which don't.  Literally ALL of the 
power company filings do pertain to the LF allocation, unfortunately.  The 
relative handful of comments in support may not appear as impressive by 
number, so I hope the Commission will pay more attention to the merits of 
the arguments than the relative number of filings.

None the less, a solid show of interest by the public tends to keep 
rulemakers focused on the issues, and reduces the odds they'll take the easy 
way out and do nothing if the going gets tough.  If it doesn't seem like 
very many people are interested, there's less reason to put forth the 
effort.

That's why I encourage everyone with an interest in an LF ham allocation to 
read as many of the comments as you can between now and the deadline, and 
find something you want to express about them in your own words.  If you 
find a flaw in the power compnaies' arguments, great.  Or if some point made 
in the ARRL comments resonated with you, express your personal take on it. 
Most of all, be mindful of things which support the argument that amateur 
activity and current PLC operation do not have to be incompatible with each 
other!  (Remember, though, we're now in the period for Reply comments. 
Whatever you say needs to relate to points already raised by one side or the 
other, and not introduce totally new topics.)

John D