In article ,
Bill Turner wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:02:41 GMT, wrote:

Well Bill that's not good enough. Too ambiguous. sorry. This is what
the petition was going to clear up, but that's tough to do, perhaps
that's why the FCC has not acted. Nice try and I know what you're
saying but it's just not specific enugh, too much room for argument as
you have witnessed numerous times on the air.

__________________________________________________ _______

Ok, then please give us an example of how bandwidth would be stated if
you were the FCC, keeping in mind that your rule would have to
accommodate everyone's voice, from Randy Travis to Tiny Tim. :-)

--
Bill, W6WRT



Tim's dead so we won't be hearing from him.

This is the problem with trying to state bandwidth in the regulations.
You've hit the nail right on the head Bill. I can't answer the question
and neither can the FCC nor anyone else. I suppose that's why the FCC
never acted on the bandwidth petition. And, the bickering will
continue. In the mean time I have more better things to do.

United we stand divided we fall (fail), all hams should keep that in
mind. Lots of sharks out there looking for bandwidth.

73
Dale
--