|[AMRadio] Odd signals in lower 80 meters|
k5sep at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 26 14:50:18 EST 2006
Anthony, Don and Everyone else-
I had the privilege (?) of serving as ARRL Rocky
Mountain Division Vice-Director for two consecutive
terms. At that time, terms of office were two years
--- "D. Chester" <k4kyv at charter.net> wrote:
> From: Anthony W. DePrato <wa4jqs at mikrotec.com>
> > guess what that same group that somehow got into
> the arrl in the late 60's
> > and early 70's are the same group that runs it
> today. the Prez. is just a
> > figure head with no power just does what little Mr
> Sunshine up there tells
> > him to do and say. the rest follow suit or are
> soon replaced. glad someone
> > told the story about the dumbing down of
> > qst. Ham Radio Mag the last real ham tech mag went
> by the wayside years
> > ago. i still have every copy.
> Ham Radio was a good technical publication.
> Unfortunately, it did not
> survive the great dumb-down of the 1970's-80's, and
> I think its demise was a
> great loss for amateur radio. One problem I had
> with it, though, was that
> the late editor, Jim Fisk (now SK) was strongly
> anti-AM and was reluctant to
> even admit that the mode existed, despite the fact
> that there was ample AM
> activity on the lower frequency bands at the time
> and that the renewed
> interest in AM was steadily growing.
> I recall one particular news item that clearly
> showed this bias, in one of
> the issues during the FCC's Docket 20777 proceeding,
> which was proposing to
> "deregulate" amateur AM out of existence below 28.5
> mHz. The article said
> something to the effect that "160m AM enthusiasts
> are just now learning of
> their peril." At that time there indeed was some
> regular AM activity on
> 160m, which was still under LORAN frequency and
> power restrictions, but the
> vast majority of AM activity was on 75m, and most of
> this was in the
> Northeastern part of the country, so there was no
> excuse for anyone at Ham
> Radio to not be well aware that 160m activity made
> up only a small fraction
> of the overall AM activity that was rapidly coming
> back to amateur radio.
> Fisk was just refusing to admit that AM was playing
> any significant role in
> amateur radio at the time.
> Nevertheless, I do recall that some articles on
> specialised methods of AM
> detection made it into HR Magazine during its final
> Don k4kyv
One of my continuing issues with ARRL is that of
non-documentation. For example, CQ Magazine is
subscription only and not a membership organization
unlike the League. Yet, in each monthly issue there is
a self addressed post-card for responding to that
issue's survey questions. They then report the results
in a future issue. The League could do something
similar with QST. It could also do the same survey on
their website. Collection of this data can be compiled
for computer storage and report in an upcoming issue
of QST. It can also be used for their Board and other
committee activities. So why do they not do this?
Unfortunately, the answer is obvious.
I got tired of hearing, "The members in our Division
support/do not support an issue". Who does or
doesn't(not by name and callsign)? Where is a
documented survey to back up a given position?
Sorry I do not remember the FCC Docket number but
remember in the late 60's (I think it was 1968-1969)
Incentive Licensing? Please correct me if I am wrong
but I thought the League supported it. As a result,
many of their members by the thousands dropped their
membership for years to come. Naturally this adversely
effected League membership numbers along with the
amateur radio community.
Unfortunately, after all these years the League and
their higher-ups have not learned their lesson.
Survey, Document, Report, etc.
Just my two cents worth if that.
ARRL Member since 1969
ARRL Life Member since 1976
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 22 Jan 2018.