Hello Don, thanks for the comments. You may be right. If all worked as well as the 160 case, I would go for that right away. I dont think the 75 meter people are as courteous as 160 people though. Time will tell.
73 DE Charlie, K0NG Quoting Donald Chester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ...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?? > > > > Charlie, > > I think we need to get away from the subband mentality altogether. The last > > thing we need is to further chop up the bands for an "AM subband". That > implies that we would be RESTRICTED TO those subband frequencies. If AM got > > a subband, then SSTV, PSK31, RTTY and all the other modes would want one as > well. > > 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. Let all the bands be > > like 160 is now. It has worked pretty well without subbands the past 20 > years or so since LORAN restrictions were lifted. > > Don K4KYV > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > > _______________________________________________ > AMRadio mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio >
