[AMRadio] Subbands and FCC

[k0ng at inebraska.com]

  Hello Don, thanks for the comments. You may be right. If all worked as well
  as the 160 case, I would go for that right away. I dont think the 75 meter
  people are as courteous as 160 people though. Time will tell.

  73 DE Charlie, K0NG  

Quoting Donald Chester <k4kyv at hotmail.com>:

> 
> 
> 
> >From: k0ng at inebraska.com
> 
> >  ...I agree that we need to have a smaller
> >   CW subband, say 50 KHz on each band due to the nunber of users of CW.
> >   Then lets use the same logic in selecting an AM band. Based on the
> >   number of active AM'ers, how many KHz do you think we deserve??
> >
> 
> Charlie,
> 
> I think we need to get away from the subband mentality altogether.  The last
> 
> thing we need is to further chop up the bands for an "AM subband".  That 
> implies that we would be RESTRICTED TO those subband frequencies.  If AM got
> 
> a subband, then SSTV, PSK31, RTTY and all the other modes would want one as 
> well.
> 
> I say let's go the way of Canada and most of the rest of the world.  Get rid
> 
> of subbands altogether - by mode AND by licence class.  Let all the bands be
> 
> like 160 is now.  It has worked pretty well without subbands the past 20 
> years or so since LORAN restrictions were lifted.
> 
> Don K4KYV
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AMRadio mailing list
> AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
>