As long as corporations view it as a way to make more cash, it will never be safe. I’m really hoping the ARRL does what amateurs are paying it to do, and fight this tooth and nail. Sadly their track record doesn’t give me hope at all.
@Dusty @kb6nu Keep in mind that ARRL is limited by the amount of money we give them. It’s less than a drop in the bucket compared to what Verizon et. al. can pay for influence. Is this the fault of the ARRL, or the fault if the people that elect corruptible shills?
The ARRL’s track record is not a sign of failure by the ARRL. Given the resources they have to work with, and the willingness to cheat their adversaries possess, and our ability to elect criminals, they’ve been performimg miracles.
And those are the types of excuse that keep them from even trying. “Well you didn’t pay us enough, so we aren’t going to even try. By the way, your cost of membership are going up, because membership numbers are plummeting. Totally not our fault though.”
People (like me) are pretty fed up with the hands constantly being shoved asking for more, while getting less and less for what we give.
In this case, their time may be better spent finding allies with interests in stopping yet another ratcheting up of high-frequency trading, and the market volatility and unfairness that it creates. There are some deep-pocketed investors (pension funds?) and well respected economists that will be able to tug on the FCC’s ears better than the ARRL ever could, provided the ARRL can encourage them to do so.
Those types would normally be only concerned with the FTC, but in this case, they can make good cases to the FCC that this particular use of the spectrum has no public benefit.
Stock market prices