[AMRadio] Subbands and FCC

[John Beasley]

If they QRM'd those CW stations then they deserved the
citation.

There is no excuse for that behavior.

--... ...--

de WAØSTX
John


----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald Chester" <k4kyv at hotmail.com>
To: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Subbands and FCC


>
>
>
> >From: "Jeff Edmonson" <w5omr at w5omr.shacknet.nu>
>
> why did Riley, et crew give
> >OO notices to three hams for "operating phone in the CW sub-band of
160m"?
> >
> >Dennis Clouter(sp?) was one of them, and the three are listed in the
> >archives
> >of the "FCC Enforcement" logs.
> >
>
> There are no government-mandated subbands on 160.  There is a "band plan"
> published by ARRL.  The story I heard was that the stations in Houston
were
> firing up on top of existing cw QSO's in the "dx window" and either
ignoring
> calls that the frequency was in use, or actually saying over the air that
> they didn't care if they QRM'ed the cw stations.  Riley sent them a letter
> saying they could be cited for deliberate interference, and not following
> good amateur practice, since it appeared that they knew the cw stations
were
> there.
>
> This incident instigated a petition to the FCC to create a cw subband on
> 160.  So far, the FCC has not acted on it, and at the FCC forum at Dayton,
> they left the impression that they would not be inclined to adopt the
> proposal.
>
> Don K4KYV
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMRadio mailing list
> AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio