[Boatanchors] =The_SSSOBs_Inspire_Me_Again?

[Bill Cromwell]

On 04/25/2016 08:51 AM, w5jo at brightok.net wrote:
> I believe the aggravation is really about the SSB stations who center 
> on 3.892 just in the passband of our receivers and run maximum power.  
> Or those who zero beat the AM carrier and run a lot of power, the same 
> bunch does that from time to time.  I hear SSB stations regularly drop 
> in between  two AM QSOs  that are on 3.880 and 3.885.  Then there is 
> the "traffic" net that is on 3.878 or so that is near me.  This "net" 
> is associated with the 40 meter "net" that gave Bill W8VYZ so much 
> trouble.
>
> They always appear when the AM QSO has been going on for a while so, 
> it appears, that they need to learn respect.  Why should AM stations, 
> who have been operating for a time before the SSB stations appear, 
> move to accommodate them?
>
> I would support the FCC establishing a quasi government/civilian 
> organization to help enforce the rules.  It sure seems the FCC doesn't 
> care.
>
> Jim
> W5JO
>

Hi Jim,

Regarding the  nets..

I have participated in NTS traffic nets and a couple of others over the 
years (moving back into the traffic nets). The net frequency for QMN 
(for instance) is 3565 kc *+/- QRM*. That means if you find a ragchew in 
progress on or near the "net frequency" look for the net a little higher 
or a little lower. Those VFOs are wonderful things. It's not reasonable 
for hams in general to whine about how empty the bands are and in the 
same breath whine and cry about having to move a few cycles up or down 
the band. That guy on the TV says "gimme a break".

73,

Bill  KU8H

-- 
"Intelligence from the internet is unreliable because we cannot verify it's accuracy nor the author's credentials."

- Julius Caesar