RM-11828: FCC invites comments on ARRL petition to give Technicians HF phone privileges.

Discussion in 'Amplitude Modulation' started by K4KYV, Mar 15, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: QSOToday-1
ad: Left-3
  1. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    But these things are already against the rules, as you point out. What we need is better rule enforcement, which may or may not happen. But this has nothing to do with the proposal, that is my point here.

    Fear is a strong motivator. You point out some illegal activity happening, then explain that it will be the ruination of ham radio if this proposal goes through, because obviously, everyone who gets on HF is only motivated to become a "Randal". I think he is the new Keyser Soze, at least for some ham ops.
  2. AB2RA

    AB2RA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Actually YOU were the one who first used the phrase "Sailor Bogeyman" in a forum some time ago.
    I have been studying you and the others for some time.
    I liked that turn of phrase, and have adopted it to summarize the issue.
    Do you mind terribly if I borrow your catch phrase? Is it trade marked or copy right protected?

    I don't engage in subtlety. Just the facts, m'aam. Joe Friday.
    So it comes across as obvious? Good. I try to get to the point.
    I am not "appealing to fear".
    People should pay attention to the facts, and get hopping mad and go file comments at the FCC proceeding.

    People with a brain will make up their own minds based on the facts.
    People without a brain will just drink the Kool Aid.
    Or let others do their thinking for them.
    AC0OB, N2EY and K7JEM like this.
  3. AB2RA

    AB2RA Ham Member QRZ Page

    The lack of ability to monitor this activity is the reason it has gone off the rails, no outside audit.

    Randal Evan is not necessarily the bad guy here. He just wanted to cruise his yacht, and have free email. The ham who loaned him the call sign, and the system that allowed him to get away with it is the problem.
    AC0OB, N2EY and K7JEM like this.
  4. AB2RA

    AB2RA Ham Member QRZ Page

    It has everything to do with the proposal. Its the whole point of the proposal.
    Its part of a package of proposals, 16-239, Rm-11759, RM-11708. With those other rule makings unresolved, it becomes one issue.
    There are certain elements of RM-11828 that I could enthusiastically support.
    The 80 meter phone element for emcomm and nets for instance.
    Allowing Techs to play with FT8 on smaller portions 80 and 15 for instance.
    But the Sailor Bogeyman got stuck in the mix, so its NO to ALL.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2019
  5. K8EA

    K8EA Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    OK, I read through it as well as the extraordinarily well written response by Janis/AB2RA (which I am uploading here). It only takes a few minutes to make a public comment and there is only three weeks left. Please take the time to oppose RM-11828. Here are some links provided by Janis/AB2AR to assist in making public comments on RM-11828:

    File by typing online in a form brief comments:


    Upload a prepared document in .doc or .pdf for longer comments:


    Get the facts, all links I used in my research, to support my position:


    How it got started and what must be fixed first before license restructuring:


    Attached Files:

    KD0CAC likes this.
  6. AA7EJ

    AA7EJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Can anybody seriously, no stupid jokes please, answer the following :

    If I take published ARRL petition and modify it to submit my own will the reaction of THIS public (group) will be "get a rope"?

    In another word - if an organization claiming to represent me publishes, puts in public domain , a document - is that "copyrighted" or "open source" to paraphrase software industry?

    I am not arguing the contents ( don't care ) , just like to shamelessly swipe the fruit of ARRL lawyers.
    If it OK to lie or cheat in / or public, stealing the petition form / format should be OK.

    73 Shirley
    AB2RA likes this.
  7. AB2RA

    AB2RA Ham Member QRZ Page

    I actually developed my "format" for comments and petitions by downloading ARRL's, and replacing it with my information, to get the right legalese. I totally pirated it, including using some of their jargon and phrases.
    In the first 30 days, you get to petition for dismissal, which I did, or file your own alternate petition.
    https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10314271330556/petition to dismiss RM-11828.pdf

    You can file a petition in the "Inbox-1.401" which is where all good petitions go to die a slow death.

    You enter what you want to do here:
    In the "Type of Filing", click on the right hand arrow, get a drop down box, and select "Petition for Rule making"
    Fill the rest of the form out. Then upload your petition.

    In the opening of your document, please don't use pretentious antique verbiage, like
    "Comes now James Edwin Whedbee"

    It would be good to discuss your petition with others first, and get some feedback, and support for it.
    Or you could run a bogus survey, and ignore the results if they don't agree with what you want to do.
    ARRL does that all the time, and claims wide support from a survey.
    AC0OB likes this.
  8. KD5OGU

    KD5OGU Ham Member QRZ Page

    Heres a question for all of you saying that there wont be any incentive to upgrade after they "give away" a tiny sliver of the phone privileges.....

    What's the incentive to upgrade from general to extra? Oh that's right.... exactly the same incentive techs would have to upgrade to general.... more bandwith....

    With a general license, there literally no bands or privileges that extras can access that you cant. Extras just have more.... that's all.

    That's the point of this. Currently there is no incentive for a tech to upgrade.... no matter how many of think there are. That's why even though the number of licensed operators is up (even by percentage of the population) for the 1970s, and more than half stop at tech.
  9. K4KYV

    K4KYV Premium Subscriber Volunteer Moderator QRZ Page

    I don't follow what you are getting at. Who modified what petition? The whole thing is published verbatim on the FCC's website, as well as in numerous ARRL releases. It's up to us, the public, to spread the word of its existence, discuss it, and eventually to submit our own original comments, in our own words, back to the FCC. Nothing is copyrighted in the content of an FCC public notice. ARRL lawyers composed and released it so that the ham community could slice it, dice it, and then respond in our own words.

    If someone responds by submitting their own counter-petition to the FCC, they have that right, but it's probably more effective to merely submit comments to the original.
    N2EY, AB2RA and AC0OB like this.
  10. N2EY

    N2EY XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Novices got 10 meter CW in 1972. So we're talking 15 years later!

    Often they used Amateur Radio gear that had been modified. Some rigs such as the Tempo One just needed a heterodyne crystal and they were set to go.

    And that was how many decades ago?

    Some of (ahem) do still build our own stations.

    As for SSB....consider this:


    The ubitx is a QRP SSB/CW transceiver kit that sells for $129 and covers all HF bands. It's not a complete kit - the builder needs to supply a case and do some assembly. But it provides up to 10 watts CW and SSB (more than a "discarded CB transceiver") and has most of the features needed for modern operating. And there is a very active online community supporting the ubitx.

    Rigs like the ubitx are the modified command sets/old TV set rigs of today. One does not need a lot of technical know-how, shop tools, test equipment or parts sources to build and use one.

Share This Page

ad: M2Ant-1