Don: Re the last paragraph.......I agree that we need to have a smaller CW subband, say 50 KHz on each band due to the nunber of users of CW. Then lets use the same logic in selecting an AM band. Based on the number of active AM'ers, how many KHz do you think we deserve??
73 DE Charlie, K0NG, AM since 55, still even. Quoting Donald Chester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On page 2 of the 11 Sept 2002 issue of World Radio under "Newswatch", the > following article appears: > > Powell: No More Spectrum > > WASHINGTON FCC Chairman Michael Powell has called for efficient use of > existing spectrum, not just allocation of more of it. He said demand > increasingly is far outstripping available bandwidth. > > "The real challenge is how to get more use out of spectrum that 80 percent > of the time lies fallow," he said. Powell believes the answer lies in > increasing use of existing technologies... and spectrum sharing... (snip) > > ...He made his remarks before a supectrum policy forum in August. A spectrum > > policy task force will present its recommendations to the commission by the > end of October. (end of article) > > While he probably didn't have ham radio in mind when he made the statement, > the argument against subbands on the HF amateur bands based on inefficient > use of existing allocations (crowded phone bands while many kHz of "CW" > spectrum remains unaccupied) seems consistent with his declaration. > > Don K4KYV > > _________________________________________________________________ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > > _______________________________________________ > AMRadio mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio >
