|[AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire|
bcarling at cfl.rr.com
Sun Dec 4 20:37:26 EST 2005
The neat thing is that in the hundreds of comments on this subject
over the past few weeks,
the ones with the anti-social attitude that are behind this latest
boondoggle proposal from the ANTI-RADIO REGRESSION
This was all in an earlier thread where the little PRO-Bandwidth
Proposal Group got thoroughly stomped by the rest.
In that discussion there was pretty much no hostile
comment against AM.
50 Pages of well-reasoned discussion (in most cases) and
rebuttal by the people who have experienced the MENACE that
K4CJX, KQ6XA and their petty, "Anti-amateur-radio-as-we-know-
it" crowd are trying to FORCE on amateur radio.
You will find VERY few supporters of this Bandwidth Proposal.
The whole thing needs to be rejected lock, stock and barrel.
I have left ARRL because of this, and the other (many) things they
have done over the past few years to ruin amateur radio.
They are NOT listening, and they are NO LONGER "Of, By and
For the Radio Amateur."
They are now Of, By and For the Commercial, Digital Special
Interest Lobby headed by K4CJX and Winlink Pactor which has
totally over-ruled sound judgement in regards to the rules
governing automatic unattended HF digital stations
The following is the BACKDROP to the lunacy that is now
prevailing in ARRL's Proposal (WHICH I understand may be
actually with the ENCOURAGEMENT AND COMPLICITY of FCC)
A torpedo fired into the heeart of AM would NOT be out of step with
the kind of MANIPULATION that is already going on behind the
scenes. OR just the threat of it to intimidate others into getting on
board this train to hell in a hand basket.
Your mileage may vary. My mileage will mostly stick with
preserving the right to HOMEBREW, and to operate AM
and CW without QRM from the PAC PESTS that belong
on VHF and above.
On 5 Dec 2005 at 0:33, Donald Chester wrote:
> I think we could have reasonably well predicted this:
> "...Perhaps the one thing most egregious to digital proponents in the ARRL
> bandwidth plan has been an exemption in the 3.5khz band segment for AM. Mr.
> Rotolo confirms that this exception has raised quite a ruckus in the digital
> community. It begs the question, if an exception is created for AM why not
> an exception for 25khz data..."
> "...Perhaps the petition shows undue favoritism for AM phone. Instead of
> that, a better way would be a 10kHz bandwidth overlay in parts of larger HF
> ham bands at REDUCED AVERAGE POWER LEVEL(emphasis mine) This would allow AM
> but not preclude other transmission methods with similar bandwidth occupancy
> effects. Obviously, the ARRL has bowed to tradition in these areas in their
> efforts to accommodate the status quo."
> Don k4kyv
> AMRadio mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 21 Oct 2017.