The AM Forum

Here are the links for reading the comments and posting your comments.

This may be of help in observing comments:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi

In the proceeding box just type in the RM number your are interested in.

'and this link for filing your comments:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

When referring to 11306 you must type it in as   RM-11306

If you do not understand the system or feel uncomfortable with the filing site please fire off your comments to - - - -

 stoprm11306@amfone.net. .

Include your comments ( a paragraph or two and your legal name, address with your call as listed in the QRZ Database. I will file your comments for you.

Everyone, please, comment. Your input is critical.

I filed my verbiage with the FCC earlier this evening...
How loing does it take to show up?

It will show up with in 24 hours

I continue to try and get tallies updated around midday Monday through Friday. I must read, or at least scan, each comment which can take some time.  There are some very, very good comments already filed and if you're in need of some ideas, I'd urge you to take an hour or two and do some reading.  Gary's provided the search info here already.  It'll be worth your time.   

While comments are running about 3 to 1 against RM-11306, the Newington CT publishing company's petition, there's no telling what the FCC may do.  Hopefully, if motivated by nothing other than self-interest, the FCC will realize what a regulatory nightmare RM-11306 would create for them and accordingly will decline to move RM-11306 to PRM status.  But who knows? 

It is interesting to note that last Friday, the other big publishing company in the amateur radio field, CQ Communications, filed comments not entirely supportive of the Newington company's proposal.  About that,  I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Hopefully, my comment made it in just under the wire. ;)  Been dealing with family crises, hospital visits, getting tossed out of work, things like that... :-\

Got mine in for 11305 today.  11306 last week.

I randomly scanned through comments to 11305, and while overall they seemed to be going strongly against the petition, many of those in opposition state that they agree the phone bands need to be expanded, suggesting that 75m be extended down to the vicinity of 3600, and a number of the "nay" votes made it a point to state opposition to any attempt to limit or restrict AM.

Also, more than a few of those writing in opposition made it clear that they didn't quite understand what was actually being proposed.

It seems that many of the "brief" comments to both petitions simply say yea or nay, with no attempt to back it up by explaining why.  I suspect those will carry very little weight.  A few well thought out responses that make valid points will leave a greater impression than a large number of simple yea's and nay's.  I doubt if the FCC will be enthusiastic about making any rule change that will result in more hassle or more work for them.

I also got the impression that many of those in opposition to 11305 based their stand not on the phone vs cw issue, but on concern raised over the automatic/semi-automatic unattended issue.

There seems to be a consensus amongst a significant group that ARRL's opposition to substantial phone band expansion is part of a power grab to re-deploy the unused cw frequencies for sending e-mail.

ARRL's proposal has the 75 meter phone band from 3620 to 4000 KHz. Of course, it's also hard to have a bandwidth proposal and not define a "maxima" for all modes.