I have not ever contacted anyone at FCC although I have contacted ARRL staff for help on such things. Perhaps one could contact Bill Cross, but it would be best if they have a clarification that is released for public knowledge rather than to one individual or a small group.
Having said that, I personally have read the rules many, many times, and parts are very clear. The ones that I felt were what reasonable people would understand. It was Bonnie who disagreed. Nothing wrong with disagreeing, as long as you then explain why you disagree. She has not been able to do that. This seems to be her modus operandi based on previous interactions. And the reason is that she really can not refute the current rules. 73, Rick, KV9U kd4e wrote: >Why not just request a clarification from the FCC? > >They are pretty responsive to such requests. > >No point in chasing our tails here -- they surely have >a definitive notion of their intent and will not be >shy about stating as much. > >I am among those who do not believe that automatic >stations have any place whatsoever on HF Ham spectrum >given the impossibility of avoiding unintentional QRM >due to vagaries in propagation. > >I am not terribly fond of anything unattended on HF, >automatic or semi-automatic, other that perhaps rare >and carefully considered and closely monitored beacons. > >That said, we need a clarification from the FCC so that >everyone knows what is the FCC position, then we all >live with it. Those who are unhappy can officially >petition the FCC for a reconsideration. > >Otherwise we may be headed for a "time without judges >when everyone did as he/she thought best" -- that is >anarchy which leads to more conflict, then more and >more direct FCC regulation, not to mention more clutter >on these lists! > >What say you Rick & Bonnie? Ask the FCC for a clarification? > >You may add my name and Call to the list of Hams asking >for said clarification -- so long as the request simply >presents both options and asks the FCC to state which >they intended, and perhaps their reason(s) why. > >:-) > > >
