Re: [TenTec] ARRL "regulation by bandwidth"

["Larry W8ER" <larry@w8er.com>]

Ira,

Maybe we all have reason to be nervous! Sumner, ARRL chief, said " using the 
FCC rules to subdivide the amateur HF bands is the wrong approach. The FCC 
rules are too static and too difficult to change" and yet that's exactly 
what the proposal is attempting to do. Is the proposal going forward or 
backward and does the ARRL know the difference?
--Larry W8ER

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ira Franklin" <k4ymq@yahoo.com>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL "regulation by bandwidth"


> Guess I just get nervous with some of their plans, still remember that 
> they were the group that brought the great boon of incentive licenseing to 
> ham radio.
> Ira  K4YMQ
>
>
> Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net> wrote:
> Martin, AA6E wrote:
>
> > AM forever! - read the article:
> Oops...I guess I did not read the text carefully enough, and made the
> completely rediculous assumption that the pictorial chart
> representations would be complete and accurate.
>
> > "The EC made no change to its earlier recommendation that the rules
> > continue to permit double-sideband, full-carrier AM and independent
> > sideband (ISB) as specific exceptions to the 3 kHz bandwidth
> > limit--with restrictions of 9 kHz and 6 kHz respectively.
> DE N6KB
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec