Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site techsup
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!techsup!mikey
From: mikey@techsup
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Re: Proposal (LONG!!!)
Message-ID: <-27771444@techsup>
Date: Thu, 9-Jan-86 12:49:00 EST
Article-I.D.: techsup.-27771444
Posted: Thu Jan  9 12:49:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jan-86 01:29:32 EST
References: <277714@techsup>
Lines: 26
Nf-ID: #R:techsup:-27771447:techsup:-27771444:000:1119
Nf-From: techsup!mikey    Jan  9 11:49:00 1986




I posted the original of Mr. Stoners letter to usenet, and I'll forward
all respones to him.

All comments are appreciated, both pro and con.

For the record, I've gotten information that the ARRL will oppose
this proposal.

Finally, I'll reread the original and other documents that I didn't post
to usenet and any that are relevent, I will post here.  I didn't post
them all before, but I see a need now as there seems to be the feeling
here that we are 'giving up' a section of the spectrum when the feeling
from the other documents is that this will not be a surrender, just that
there would be an additional service, as it would require a license to
operate but that would be allowed under technician and higher class
license.  In other words, this would be a new 'no code' license for
'digital' use only.  I personally think it is a great vehicle for enticing
new blood into the HAM ranks, as newcomers will get a taste of the RF
spectrum and then want to move up to VHF high or UHF once they get their
TECH license, or into HF if they learn more than the minimum code.

mikey N1DVJ
trsvax!techsup!bbimg!mikey