[AMRadio] Rebuttal to K4KYV

Jim Wilhite w5jo at brightok.net
Wed Apr 4 11:59:43 EDT 2007


Your opinion is well stated however there are a couple of 
points I would like the make.

The fact that you and your associates  moved to 3.686.5 may 
indicate you feel that the frequency has become someone's 
property and immune to other operators using it.  I hope you 
do not believe that to be the case.  Frequencies are shared 
by everyone, first come, first served.  If you or anyone is 
just monitoring a frequency without active communication 
means it is open to anyone who wishes to call CQ.

I do wish you would explain how you determined the bandwidth 
of 15 kc?  Could you explain how this was done so we could 
understand how you arrived at that figure?  As for Don's 
intentions, they are as valid as yours, again no frequency 
or bandwidth is owned.  If Don calls CQ on a frequency that 
does not have active communications, then he has the right 
to do so in any approved mode he wishes, as you do.

But to "guard" a frequency until someone known appears is 
not a legal claim nor acceptable practice.  So if you would 
please expand on your post, and do not be personal about the 
operators in question or those who have responded to you 
thus far.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Hardage" <k5uy at k5uy.com>
To: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:37 AM
Subject: [AMRadio] Rebuttal to K4KYV

>I rarely respond to such short sided attacks from people 
>who lack the
> courage of their convections ,  in the case and post that 
> Mr. Chester  has
> placed on this board, I'd like a moment to respond.   I've 
> been around the
> bands for years, I know many hams around the country and 
> I was forwarded
> Chester's post.  As sad as this is, I believe it's 
> indicative of people that
> don't let the facts  get in the way of their story.
> First, I could, as Mr. Chester has done , assume 
> everything he's complaining
> about is true in reverse, but I want.  What I will do, is 
> remind him that
> today's technology all but eliminates 15 kc wide, over 
> Powered, and over
> modulated am signals completely.   The ham's he's calling 
> "names" are all
> accomplished experienced ham's and have exceptional 
> antennas, in many cases
> directional.
> The Night the bands expanded our group moved to 3686.5. We 
> had no Idea of
> Chester's intentions of making the new frequencies a AM 
> domain, based on his
> own comments in earlier blogs.
> The call he's making to the AM community "if all the 
> AM'ers come to that
> frequency  and run off these Guys"  would be as childish 
> as Chester's
> obvious clinical emotional state.
> Often, SSB stations on 3786.5 are running 100 watts, that 
> power that is
> necessary to establish communication.  When Mr. Chester 
> fires up, he spends
> the first 15 minutes testing and tuning up.   During this 
> time he's keyed
> down, SSB station will start their amplifiers to maintain 
> contact with
> on-going, conversations.  Chester, then calls CQ for ten 
> minutes.
> Yes, there are at times nulls in the conversation, but I 
> and most others
> that have listen to him, do not believe that Chester would 
> stop his obvious
> attempt to claim AM Frequency by maliciously calling CQ. 
> I'm not
> interested in starting similar wars that have existed up 
> the band.  I
> believe for certain, I'd take other avenues to solve that 
> problem.   I guess
> as a AM Ham radio operator and you want to spend your time 
> doing as Mr.
> Chester suggest, then I  can't stop you.  I will say, Pick 
> your leader
> carefully.
> 73's
> Bill Hardage
> K5UY
> Watching Texas WX

More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 15 Dec 2017.