Dear Mr. Valko: I want to thank you for posting such a polite responce to Mr.
Bridges rather odd statement. Thank's again for demonstrating such good
judgement and providing such an excellent answer. - 73's- Corn- k4own.
>>> "Paul R. Valko" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 08/18/01 01:21AM >>>
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Sam Bridges wrote:
> Has anyone noticed that the FCC is accepting comments on ARRL's petition
> seeking allocation of 5.2 to 5.4 mhz to the amateur service? My question:
> Is the Omni VI+ modifiable to this new band? If not I cannot see how I
> could afford to be for this petition.
With all due respect Sam...
Am I to understand that you would oppose a new ham allocation because your
radio may not be able to operate on it? We should be thankful that few
amateurs shared that opinion in the 1970's when the WARC bands were being
discussed. With an attitude like that we'd have never got 30, 17, or 12
Not many - if any - radios were really easily modified back in those
pre-WARC days. Almost every ham rig was PTO-based like our beloved
Ten*Tecs, or they had tubes and tank circuits.
Just because the japanese rigs are easily modifiable for CB, er... I mean
MAR/CAP... that still won't make them "better" than your incredible Omni
In today's age of commercial encroachment on ham frequncies, any
additional bandwidth opportunities need to be totally supported by the
whole ham community.
I urge you to please thoughtfully reconsider your stance and thank you for
73! =paul= W8KC
Collector of Ten*Tecs and other fine plastics.
Visit the Virtual Ten*Tec Museum at:
TenTec mailing list