Is the Regulation-by-Bandwidth proposal dead?

[k4kyv]

Evidently the League doesn't think so.

From Report of the Ad Hoc Band Planning Committee ARRL Board of irectors Annual Meeting, January, 2007  (ARRL Website)

The Committee will now continue the process of reviewing individual band plans and developing a process to prepare for regulation by bandwidth.

http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-2007/january/22-BandPlanningCommittee.pdf

[KB2WIG]

                       When will this madness end??   



                         http://www.bunkerofdoom.com/fools.wavwill



                    klc

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Why would it be dead?? FCC has yet to comment on the RM.

"Be Prepared" is the motto.

[WA3VJB]

The group in Newington enjoys getting spanked, Don, as if the 8-1 ratio of comments opposed weren't enough.

That's all the "comment" the FCC really needs to consider.

It looks like they want to portray themselves as victims these days, losers hoping for sympathy from constituents they've already lost. See BPL, email-via-ham radio, the Red Cross background check fiasco, antenna covenants, and other regulatory proposals that are dead in the water.

They're down to less than 100 staff and less than 150,000 subscribers, if anyone's keeping track. I am, because it's great data to counter their bombastic claims of representing all amateurs.

[WA3VJB]

The PDF attachment below consists of notes from an unpublished meeting between ARRL and FCC filed Feb. 14, 2007
After reading the latest from their digital buff Paul Rinaldo, aided by unelected CEO Dave Sumner, it continues to be necessary to follow up and note to the Commission the overwhelmingly negative response from the greater amateur community against the proposal from the group in Newington.

The scale and volume of this opposition is not acknowledged in their document below.

[k4kyv]

I downloaded the PDF and, as pointed out by N5RFX on QRZ.com, it appears that the ARRL is now proposing changes that would affect only 10 metres and higher frequencies, while everything below 28 mHz, including the newly expanded phone bands, would remain status quo.

I don't recall exactly how the "AM Exception" footnote was worded in the original document, but it seems to me to be a little more definitive in this one:

(5) The 3 kHz maximum bandwidth does not apply to double-sideband amplitude-modulated phone A3E emissions.

Do others interpret this the same way, or am I missing something?

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Why would a 3 kHz limitation be needed on freqs ABOVE 10 meters? Spectrum is plentiful up there. If any experimentation with wideband modes were to take place, these bands would be the appropriate spots.