> I agree. Just get on and talk to as many as will respond. Our frequencies > are still in jeopardy. > > > Allen KA1KIX
That is undoubtedly true at VHF, UHF and microwave, but I don't think commercial and government interests are knocking themselves out fighting over HF allocations. That's exactly the reason broadcasters vacated 7.1-7.2. Point-to-point fixed and mobile users above 7.3 didn't have enough use for those frequencies, so they were given to the broadcasters, freeing up the ham band from the SWBC QRM. No doubt, the same holds true for 60m. But just as we were about to get a new ham band, the tragic unforeseen events happened and immediately someone shouted "9-11" (sound familiar?), and suddenly those frequencies were of prime importance for national security reasons, and we were given that pitiful excuse for a ham band that we ended up with. I recall before the final FCC decision, it was a foregone conclusion that we would be getting a new band, and the big debate going on in ham radio circles was whether the band should have mode sub-bands, or be like 160, with no sub-bands whether licence class or emission mode. Don k4kyv _______________________________________________________________ This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout. http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak/ http://gigliwood.com/abcd/ ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Post: [email protected] To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the word unsubscribe in the message body. This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
