It does not seem as though they deliberately relegate AM to a footnote, it
looks more like the effort is only to give AM its due, while keeping the
hi-fi SSB stuff at bay. That's what I see anyway, between the lines.
They could have as easily put the AM exception statement in each cell of
the
Of course, a strict 3.5 kHz limit would shut down
a lot of slopbuckets as well.
Don, k4kyv
Yep...I wuz wonderin' about the ESSB crowd. Therez
quite a bunch running wideband SSB. Pretty interesting to
note all the outboard processing gear that is used, along
with expensive studio mics.
Having said that (too much already?) SOME of those ESSB
signals take up WAY less bandwidth than the
turn-on-the-processor-crank-it-up-and-use-my-leeenyear
slopbuckets that occupy 10 or 20 Khz
73 de Dan WAØJRD ..
How true!
Most of the ones I've heard sound really good and they aren't
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Don.
I still have you and Roger Frith, N4IBF to thank for reviving my
interest in AM back about 20 years ago in Nashville!
Let us all know if we need to write to the goon squads about
their latest foray into foolishness.
On 16 Nov 2005 at 2:46,
http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/bandwidth/Bandwidth-Minute-64-Petition-FINAL.pdf
I printed all 25 pages of the petition so I can sit down comfortably and
digest it all.
I don't think the FCC accepts comments to a petition until it has been
assigned a RM- number. Also, not sure if
5 matches
Mail list logo
