[Boatanchors] Petition to eliminate exclusive CW bands

[manualman at juno.com]

Actually, the FCC proposal was pulled by the ARRL 10 years ago due to a
large number of disapproval comments of the entire proposal which there
were many new requests presented. The AM bandwith designation was just
one small piece. It was not pulled because some AM comments drove it to
that.

Personally, I don't give a hoot how much AM bandwidth someone runs. My
receiver is typically set to 6 KHz or less bandwidth. I'm not looking to
work a Hi-Fi station because I don't care if you want to rumble my woofer
or make the dog's ears perk up. 6KHz is all I'm going to use to listen.
If a wide-body audio AM station wants to possibly cause adjacent
frequency interference and/or annoyance, especially on a crowed band,
that's their problem to deal with. 

Pete, wa2cwa

On Mon, 16 May 2016 12:23:15 -0500 Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo at gmail.com>
writes:
> No he's not correct, not about bandwidth anyway.  You all can 
> blather
> forever until pigs fly, but read this:  the bandwidth thing was
> decided 10 years ago when ARRL tried to have it be 9 kc for AM and 
> it
> got "voted down" by an overwhelming number of negative comments 
> filed
> in the FCC ECFS.  It stayed as a non-quantified specification in 
> the
> rules for the ARS.  That, is the Bandwidth FACT.   If you lie awake 
> at
> night because someone somewhere might actually have good transmit
> audio, instead of sounding like a kazoo in a tin can, then file
> another petition.  We'll go through all the same hullabaloo all 
> over
> again with all the same reasons why it isn't a good idea.  Anyway, 
> I
> have things to do.
> 
> 73
> 
> Rob
> K5UJ
> 
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Glen Zook <gzook at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, but he is correct!