Hi Jim, Although you don't specifically mention it --- like someone else did previously --- I think it would be MOST foolhardy for any AM'er to plop himself down & start with the ol' buzzardry stuff in the vicinity of 3.780- & 3.8-MHz...yeah, the traditional DX window...
It's not always for the benefit of domestic SSB'ers that such windows exist --- in many cases, DX stations have but a sliver of spectrum space on some bands that's available/useable: North American DX-types have tried to accommodate them through these windows. The DX stations benefit from these arrangements just as much as the W/K/VE crowd does. I think the last thing anyone would want to incur is the wrath of the entire global DX community coming down upon them, merely because it's their "...legal right" to do something! ~73~ Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Wilhite" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Phone band expansion > Pete in this case, I don't plan to follow the ARRL's suggestions. As a > member, I see good and bad, but I sure don't see them having any official > say over where we can operate. As Todd has said, phone is phone. If we > start protecting this and that, then the AM operator will have 10 Kcs and > that is all. It is pretty clear to me the FCC believes the CW, RTTY, and > digital modes can co-exist between 3.5 and 3.6 > > The new part is to eliminate congestion. Let's use it. > > 73 Jim > W5JO > ----- > > You said it, "phone is phone"; AM is phone; Calling frequency was also > > not defined as a "QSO" frequency but I know what you mean. > > > > Since all these changes to FCC's Part 97 Rules were actually accepted by > > the FCC two years ago, the ARRL has had that much time to formulate a > > revised band plan to take the changes into consideration. Will probably > > also include some of the stuff they presented in their Bandwidth > > Proposal. > > > > Pete, wa2cwa > > > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:27:11 -0400 "Todd, KA1KAQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > writes: > >> On 10/12/06, Peter Markavage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Don't make the same mistake "they" did 25 to 30 years ago by > >> defining an > >> > AM pen area. AM is phone; use it wherever your license class > >> allows. > >> > Or, maybe all can wait for the ARRL Band Plan. > >> > >> I agree with your approach Pete, except for the AM band plan part. > >> The > >> ARRL doesn't even respect its own band plan on 40m and fires up its > >> bulletin service right smack on the AM calling frequency, so I > >> don't > >> hold out any hope that their way will be anything but more of the > >> same. > > > ______________________________________________________________ > AMRadio mailing list > List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Partner Website: http://www.amfone.net > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:[email protected] > ______________________________________________________________ AMRadio mailing list List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Partner Website: http://www.amfone.net Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:[email protected]
