Bonnie, I do think the time is right; but, I think it has been for several years.
I truly believe that to just say we need more bandwidth without showing why we have not case or change to change the League's position. Show then in as simple terms as possible why more bandwidth is needed or why 3 kHz bandwidth will not support their interest and that of amateur radio. If this group could come up with a number of reasons, and each U.S. amateur wrote their individual Division Director supporting "our" position(s), or even their own valid reasons needing/wanting more bandwidth, they I think the League would move on the action. Truthfully from what I hear from various ARRL Board members is that they get few messages from their division amateur radio operators on most of the ideas that the League proposes. Thanks for you concern and what you do for Amateur Radio. 73, Walt/K5YFW expeditionradio wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Stephensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>The original ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposal put wide data in > > the same band segments with image and voice transission. Their members > seem to have convinced them otherwise. Perhaps they need to hear from > supporters of regulation by bandwidth. > >>73, >> >>John >>KD6OZH > > > Hi John, > > Several years ago, I attempted to correspond with all the ARRL staff > and directors about bandwidth-based spectrum management. > > I got nearly zero response. Perhaps the time is ripe now. > > Bonnie KQ6XA >
