Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Don. I still have you and Roger Frith, N4IBF to thank for reviving my interest in AM back about 20 years ago in Nashville!
Let us all know if we need to write to the goon squads about their latest foray into foolishness. On 16 Nov 2005 at 2:46, Donald Chester wrote: > > http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/bandwidth/Bandwidth-Minute-64-Petition-FINAL.pdf > > > I printed all 25 pages of the petition so I can sit down comfortably and > digest it all. > > I don't think the FCC accepts comments to a petition until it has been > assigned a RM- number. Also, not sure if they have a reply-comment period > for a petition that has not officially become a NPRM. Maybe someone could > clarify this. > > No doubt some of the anti-AM crowd will call for getting rid of the 9 kHz > exception for AM, and that's what bothers me most about this thing - AM > would be permitted only by an exception containted in a footnote, which > could be very easily deleted. > > Also, there is no guarantee that the FCC's NPRM would even resemble the > original petition. They could come out with something pretty much identical > to Docket 20777, which would have eliminated AM altogether, back in the > 70's. > > Also, I'm not sure about the "occupied bandwidth" vs "necessary bandwidth" > issue, as far as how bandwidth would be defined. > > The last time I checked, Canada still had a maximum bandwidth limit of 6 kHz > for AM, but I never have heard of a Canadian ham being cited for running too > much bandwidth while running a normal AM signal. I don't know how picky the > FCC would be about this. Of course, a strict 3.5 kHz limit would shut down > a lot of slopbuckets as well. > > Don, k4kyv > > > ______________________________________________________________ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
