RadioBanter - View Single Post

Mike Coslo · June 16th 07, 08:19 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated

wrote in
oups.com:

On Jun 11, 11:21?am, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote:

Like many others, I occasionally use AM on both 160 and 80 meters.

Minor point:

For some odd reason, FCC lists "80 meters" and "75 meters" in Part 97
as if they were different bands.

Really odd, in that the ARRL lumps them together as 80 meters. The
whole thing is not accurate anyhow, so I guess it is more by convention
than anything else.

I don't think we'll lose HF spectrum. VHF/UHF is what the commercial
and military folks want.

Agreed. HF "suffers" from unpredictability, or perhaps more accurately,
it's wildly varying characteristics. One part of the day, a flea power
signal can make its way around the world, the next part it won't. Then
the sunspots can do the same thing. Those are all the characteristincs
that we have fun with, but are really bad for the control that is needed
by other groups. I like to think about what would happen during good
propagation to all those competing signals.

What has already started to happen is lack of protection for licensed
radio amateurs. Look at the BPL mess: FCC has dragged its feet even
when documented harmful interference has been presented.

Politics always loses when confronted by physics. Even if wins all the
battles.

As for the bad behavior on 75, it is one of the reasons I sold my AM
rig (National NC-173, EFJohnson Viking 2 and 122 VFO) and focused on
CW.

What really puzzles me about the problem is this:

Several months ago, FCC widened 75 meters (and narrowed 80 meters)

That would be quite a trick! (joke)

even more than had been requested. AM voice is now legal for US Extras
from 3600 to 4000 kHz. That's more space than any HF/MF ham band
except 10 and 15 meters.

Is there no room for AM in all those 400 kHz?

Not for the miscreants! 8^(

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -