[AMRadio] Re: [Boatanchors] ARRL petition


Peter Markavage manualman at juno.com
Wed Feb 1 16:48:53 EST 2006


There's a big difference in requesting "MORE consideration for AM 
operations" whatever that means, versus "request that FCC provide
Amplitude 
Modulation transmission by Amateur Radio stations with MORE
BANDWIDTH...and ...specifically bandwidth - on 160 meters to 10 meters -
for AM USE ONLY."

The latter phrase actually makes no sense since there is no FCC
restriction on bandwidth for AM today. How can you ask for more when you
already have "more" or "as much as you need", etc.? Of course, the FCC
rules are tempered with "good operating practices" and "minimum bandwidth
necessary for communication". You reject the ARRL proposal that defines
bandwidth for all modes but, on the other hand, you want the FCC to
define you some specific bandwidth for AM. It sounds like you're going
around in a circle.

Pete, wa2cwa

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:16:50 EST StephenTetorka at cs.com writes:
> Folks:
> 
> As I understand matters, the ARRL petition would negatively affect 
> our AM 
> operations.
> 
> Following is my response letter for your review; notice that I ask 
> for MORE 
> consideration for AM  operations.
> 
> You are strongly invited to send your opinions - now, please -  on 
> this 
> matter to:
> 
> stopRM11306 at amfone.net
> 
> Regards,
> Steve
> WA2TAK
> 
> To FCC & To Whom It May Concern:
> 
> Date: February 1, 2006
> 
> I oppose any and all changes as per ARRL bandwidth scheme.
> 
> More importantly, I respectfully request that FCC provide Amplitude 
> 
> Modulation transmission by Amateur Radio stations with MORE 
> BANDWIDTH...and
> ...specifically bandwidth - on 160 meters to 10 meters - for AM USE 
> ONLY.
> 
> Regards,
> Stephen Tetorka
> WA2TAK
> Fair Haven, NJ 



More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 12 Dec 2017.