Re: [IRCA] KXEL Petition

[Russ Edmunds <wb2bjh@xxxxxxxxx>]

As a practical matter, that 'solution' wouldn't really help anybody because
it doesn't alter the facts of
propagation. Whatever new stations were added to the current 1_A
frequencies would - as many of their predecessors have - suffer significant
interference from the higher powered stations.

Russ Edmunds
15 mi NW Phila
Grid FN20id
<wb2bjh@xxxxxxxxx>

AM: Modified Sony ICF2010's (2) barefoot w/whip
FM: Yamaha T-80 & T-85, each w/ Conrad RDS Decoder;
Onkyo T-450RDS; Tecsun PL-310 ( 2);
modified Sony ICF2010 w/APS9B @ 15';
Grundig G8 w/whip; modified Sony ICF2010 w/whip


On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Paul B. Walker, Jr. <
walkerbroadcasting@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Here's my response:
>
> Iâm all for the changesâ And Iâm a DXer and broadcaster!!
>
> Who cares about WGY in Boston or Pittsburgh? Who cares about KDKA in
> Cincinatti or NYC?
>
> Reduce Class A Statiobs protection down from 750 miles to 300 miles and be
> done with it. Most people, if they really wanna listen to WGY or KDKA from
> far away listen online.
>
> The only people this 750 mile rule really help are DXers and the few
> distant distant listeners who donât have Internet.
>
> Why service a few at the sacrifice and cost of many? Allow small stations
> night power or more night power to provide local programming
>
>
> Paul
>
> On Friday, February 26, 2016, Dr. Tom Gruis <donnatom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > My comments on the KXEL petition:
> >
> >
> >
> > Response to KXEL petition - 02.26.2014.
> >
> >
> >
> > In addition to the above, I submit that in a national emergency the high
> > power stations would provide needed dissemination of information within
> its
> > day and night coverage areas and provide redundancy should that be
> needed!
> > Low power and FM stations would be much less capable of providing the
> > public's interest, convenience, and necessity. Further, with the
> heightened
> > concerns about national security to limit available, operating, and
> viable
> > communications systems operating within the law seems at best foolhardy!
> In
> > terms of rapid emergency or even, God forbid, catastrophic periods the
> high
> > power stations would be a more immediate and possibly coordinated
> > communications facility. Many ground stations would be much more
> difficult
> > to sabotage than concentrated systems such as cable and satellites. And
> > remember the proven reliability and simplicity of the A. M. systems and
> > wireless communications in general.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom E. H. Gruis, Ed. D.
> >
> > K0HTF
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IRCA mailing list
> > IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <javascript:;>
> > http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
> >
> > Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
> > original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
> > IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers
> >
> > For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
> >
> > To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <javascript:;>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> IRCA mailing list
> IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
>
> Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
> original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
> IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers
>
> For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
>
> To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx