[AMRadio] Is the novelty of the "new" 40mbandwearing

[D. Chester]

> I agree. Just get on and talk to as many as will respond. Our frequencies 
> are still in jeopardy.
>
>
> Allen KA1KIX

That is undoubtedly true at VHF, UHF and microwave, but I don't think 
commercial and government interests are knocking themselves out fighting 
over HF allocations.

That's exactly the reason broadcasters vacated 7.1-7.2.  Point-to-point 
fixed and mobile users above 7.3 didn't have enough use for those 
frequencies, so they were given to the broadcasters, freeing up the ham band 
from the SWBC QRM.

No doubt, the same holds true for 60m.  But just as we were about to get a 
new ham band, the tragic unforeseen events happened and immediately someone 
shouted "9-11" (sound familiar?), and suddenly those frequencies were of 
prime importance  for national security reasons, and we were given that 
pitiful excuse  for a ham band that we ended up with.

I recall before the final FCC decision, it was a foregone conclusion that we 
would be getting a new band, and the big debate going on in ham radio 
circles was whether the band should have mode sub-bands, or be like 160, 
with no sub-bands whether licence class or emission mode.

Don k4kyv

_______________________________________________________________

This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.

http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak/
http://gigliwood.com/abcd/