For what it is worth, this is what I typed in my response to this proceeding. We should be focusing on finding ways to encourage more use of this spectrum, lest we lose it. With the elimination in the licensing requirement for CW, how crowded do we really think the bottom ends of the band will really be in 50 years with CW operators?
I oppose this proceeding and a step backward in innovation for ham radio. I strongly oppose limiting digital automatic transmission on the HF bands. I strongly suggest leaving the bands as they are unchanged for the following reason: 1.) With the number of hams declining, and a decline in the use of CW modes, there really is no substantial risk of overcrowding in this spectrum. 2.) The automatic PACTOR II & III modes are an invaluable service to nautical hams in urgent situations when no other communication may be available, i.e., cell phone or available HF phone operators. This is an innovative method of safety of operation for nautical operators. 3.) If limitations in the use of automatic PACTOR use were really necessary, why not just band segregate their usage rather than completely ban them. 4.) The hobby of ham radio would be better suited to increase the number of available operating modes to encourage further hams use of HF spectrum. Michael _____ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of expeditionradio Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:57 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] FCC: "Petition to Kill Digital Advancement" Read the "Petition to Kill Ham Radio Digital Advancements" click here: http://hflink. <http://hflink.com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf> com/fcc/FCC_RM11392.pdf File your comments against "proceeding RM-11392" click here: http://fjallfoss. <http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi> fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Can we can get at least one hundred hams to oppose it? Please do your part. 73 Bonnie KQ6XA
