[AMRadio] Subbands and FCC

[George Pritchard]

Seems to me 160 is somewhat of a special case: A disproportionate number of
hams have the space for 160 meter antennas, and therefore, the band is
usually less crowded for this, and other reasons. In addition, the band is
susceptible to static during the summer and most hams flock to the upper
frequencies. The 80-10 meter bands are usually 0vercrowded especially during
the solar cycle peak (160 not affected), except for TEN since its pretty
spread out. No band plan problem on TEN except on rare occasions during a CQ
contest CQ contest thing. In the end... when ham radio dwindles down do to
less licensed operators over the next 25 years, I think it will end up with
no band plan on any band and be just like CB with roger beeps splattering
the full spectrum. A spectrual wasteland. The internet and cell phones will
have grabbed and squashed communications as a hobby. I can't believe I have
become so cynical. God help me.
George KC

-----Original Message-----
From: amradio-admin at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:amradio-admin at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of W7QHO at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:26 PM
To: k4kyv at hotmail.com; amradio at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Subbands and FCC



In a message dated 9/10/02 5:30:42 PM, k4kyv at hotmail.com writes (in part):

>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.

I would agree completely!

Dennis D.  W7QHO
Glendale, CA
_______________________________________________
AMRadio mailing list
AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio