|[AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire|
manualman at juno.com
Sun Dec 4 21:15:49 EST 2005
Did you actually count how many "different" people actually commented on
these 50 pages? These "rejectors" of the proposal account for less than
.1% of the ham population. Show me better numbers and I'll have some
sympathy for your concern. Teller's comments also are almost three years
old. The proposal has gone through several iterations since then. Some of
the alternative proposals that are now being proposed on QRZ by these
ARRL proposal "rejectors" actually could provide much more harm to AM.
The ARRL proposal actually preserves our legacy mode out to 9KHz.
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:37:26 -0500 "Brian Carling" <bcarling at cfl.rr.com>
> 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
> 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
> > effects. Obviously, the ARRL has bowed to tradition in these areas
> in their
> > efforts to accommodate the status quo."
> > http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=108389
> > Don k4kyv
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 21 Feb 2018.