[AMRadio] Your recent comments on AM (Tannehill)


Brian Carling bcarling at cfl.rr.com
Fri Jan 13 13:46:38 EST 2006


Reply to the FCC? By then it is mostly too late.
I read one place that ARRL were claiming that they had 
consulted with radio amateurs. If they REALLY claimed that
then they are bolder liars than I thought.

No, by the time this lunacy reaches FCC it is probably too late.

Discussion BEFORE the train leaves the station would make 
more sense, but it seems ARRL has moved well away from 
being any kind of accountable or representative style 
organization. Sad to say, but I have just about had it with 
them. I believe that HPM would roll over in his grave if he 
could see what  they have been doing the last few years.

On 12 Jan 2006 at 15:48, Bob Bruhns wrote:

> It might be a better idea to simply reply to the FCC on
> rulemaking proposals. This is making it a personal
> issue.
> 
>    Bacon, WA3WDR
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ben Dover" <quixote2 at ix.netcom.com>
> To: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:25 PM
> Subject: [AMRadio] Your recent comments on AM
> (Tannehill)
> 
> 
> > >Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:55:50 -0600
> > >To: <w7rt at arrl.net>
> > >From: Ben Dover <quixote2 at ix.netcom.com>
> > >Subject: Your recent comments on AM (Tannehill)
> > >
> > >Greetings.
> > >
> > >By this time you've no doubt gotten your E-mail
> boxes well and truly
> > >filled with howls of outrage from AM operators
> because of your comments.
> > >If not, consider this to be the FIRST of the coming
> flood.
> > >
> > >I'll address said comments one point at a time;
> interestingly, starting
> > >with the LAST:
> > >
> > >
> > >>> Richard L. Tannehill P.E. - W7RT
> > >
> > >ARRL Life Member
> > >(45-years amateur licensed)<<
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >First off...  your four plus decades as a licensee
> don't impress
> > >me in the least; I've held an EXTRA for four plus
> decades (and
> > >remember that back then you had to hold a General,
> Conditional,
> > >or the then defunct/ grandfathered Advanced for a
> MINIMUM of
> > >TWO YEARS before you could even APPLY for an Extra).
> > >
> > >Next...  holding the license of Professional
> Engineer doesn't
> > >impress me either. I've known a number of PEs over
> the years,
> > >and at one time toyed with the idea of apply for one
> myself.
> > >Most PEs are level headed, competent engineering
> types, but
> > >in my line of work (broadcasting) I've ALSO run into
> a number
> > >of them who got the license by the means of weekend
> "cram courses"
> > >taken so that the PE behind thier names would
> hopefully make
> > >them more convincing as salesmen of broadcasting
> equipment. A lot
> > >of these so-called "engineers" quite frankly didn't
> know which
> > >end of the hot soldering iron you're supposed to
> grab until they
> > >got a PRACTICAL lesson on that subject!
> > >
> > >Attempting to bolster one's credibility and personal
> prestige by
> > >waving irrelevant certification around is, to say
> the least, pompous
> > >and arrogant. It's common practice among broadcast
> engineers
> > >to do so. The Society of Broadcast Engineers, among
> others, has it's
> > >own program of ego boosting "certification" tests,
> and the wild
> > >proliferation of letters routinely placed behind
> names in E-mails and
> > >on business cards is tiresome, at best. To point it
> out, a colleague
> > >of mine has taken to adding ONLY the letters CMM
> behind his name
> > >in E-mails regarding engineering subjects. When
> someone bites and asks
> > >what the hell a "CMM" is, he tells them... Certified
> Motorcycle Mechanic,
> > >a certificate (which he DOES INDEED hold), and which
> is just as relevant
> > >to the subject at hand as the certifications
> everyone ELSE is tossing
> > >around with such gay abandon.
> > >
> > >
> > >>>The League claims that their plan does not favor
> one mode over
> > >another. Not true. It favors AM-DSB operators. It
> would allow for
> > >9 KHz AM modulation, in bands which otherwise are
> limited to 3.5 KHz.
> > >These include the lower HF bands, which are quite
> crowded at times.<<
> > >
> > >If you'll think back a little over your 45 years of
> hamming, you'll
> > >recall that from the beginning of that period the #1
> complaint of
> > >EVERYONE has been "the bands are too crowded...
> SOMETHING has to
> > >be done!". Digging a little bit deeper in old issues
> of QST, you'll
> > >find that Hiram Percy Maxim himself, writing as
> T.O.M. (The Old Man),
> > >was complaining that the bands were too crowded
> BEFORE WORLD WAR ONE.
> > >
> > >The defnition of "too crowded" seems to be "I can't
> get on the frequency
> > >that I want whenever I want to do it, because some
> *^%&$%$@ is already
> > >there!". I'm sure you'll agree that this definition
> is specious at best.
> > >
> > >Once again, turning to your PERSONAL experience,
> you'll no doubt recall
> > >the incredibly vicious on the air battles between
> the then dominant AM
> > >operators and the newfangled "Slop Buckets". I can
> sure as hell remember
> > >them...   wall to wall deliberate QRM, and name
> calling that fell just
> > >short of open obscenities (unlike today, hams back
> then DID respect that
> > >particular part of the regulations).
> > >
> > >Going back a bit farther... there was the long
> standing animosity between
> > >CW operators and AM people; there was simmering
> resentment from the CW camp
> > >when a phone band was added to 40 meters.
> > >
> > >Behind both of these battles was the usually bogus
> claim that spectrum
> > >space was being wasted.
> > >
> > >That argument is no more valid in the current case
> as it was in the past.
> > >Amateur radio isn't about cramming the ultimate
> signal capacity into the
> > >given bandwidth...  it's about ENJOYING yourself,
> and having some flex in
> > >the rules to experiment.
> > >
> > >
> > >>> The solution is simply to restrict AM-DSB to
> above 28.5 MHz. (10 meters
> > >& above) <<
> > >
> > >Actually, a BETTER solution would be to restrict ALL
> digital modes to 10
> > >meters and above, and for some solid engineering
> reasons. MANY digital
> > >modes are essentially PULSE transmissions, and as
> anyone who has dealt with
> > >pulse knows the generation of spurious, out of band
> products is INEVITABLE.
> > >Just ask any broadcaster who is wrestling with an
> addition of the IBOC system
> > >about that one... which points out something else.
> Newer modulation schemes,
> > >in order to work at all, usually DEMAND inherently
> wider spectrum slices.
> > Were
> > >that not the case, my employer would not be spending
> tens of thousands of
> > >dollars for new antenna systems and tower crew costs
> to install them.
> > >
> > >Given the wildly variable levels of amateur
> expertise, plus a "why should I
> > >give a damn as long as MY system works" attitude,
> sending the more modern
> > >modes of transmission to the Siberia of VHF / UHF
> makes a whole lot MORE
> > >sense.
> > >
> > >
> > >>> Amateurs and the league have been upset in the
> past over wide-SSB
> > >modulation, meant to improve audio quality. AM is no
> different from
> > >this. <<
> > >
> > >This is your only valid point, IMHO. Narrow minded
> amateurs who whine
> > >"the bands are too crowded", and an ARRL that is
> usually for sale to the
> > >highest bidding equipment manufacturer should NOT
> have opposed high
> > >quality SSB transmission by a few forward thinking
> hams.
> > >
> > >
> > >>> It is an old modulation that adds nothing to
> advancing the technological
> > >art, and should be confined to bands where there is
> ample spectrum
> > >available. <<
> > >
> > >Yes, amplitude modulation IS an old modulation
> scheme, which does little to
> > >advance the technology. But...  making that argument
> shows that you haven't
> > >been looking at the big picture over the years.
> > >
> > >The last time that individual innnovators advanced
> technology was before
> > >WW1. Lee Deforest went BROKE, numerous times, by
> clinging to the concept of
> > >independent inventors being the main driving force
> in the technological
> > >advancement of this country. These days, innovation
> comes from INDUSTRIAL,
> > >UNIVERSITY, OR GOVERNMENT R&D LABORATORIES.
> > >
> > >Can you imagine what the result would have been had
> an individual inventor
> > >come to General Leslie Groves and said "I have this
> GREAT idea for a weapon.
> > >You smack two hunks of uranium together and there's
> a hell of an explosion.
> > >Just give me a few billion dollars and we can get
> started building it"?
> > >
> > >Groves would have had the MPs toss this guy out on
> his ass, and then chewed
> > >a few butts for even allowing such NUTS in the front
> door to bother him!
> > >
> > >These days, sad to say, hams aren't even on the
> front lines of technological
> > >advancement anymore. Nowadays, we don't even have
> the Defense Department as a
> > >watchdog over our spectrum anymore...  the 220 MHz
> ham band used to be under
> > >DoD protection because it was spectrum that they
> could expand into in time
> > >of war and severe need for spectrum.
> > >
> > >Guess what? UPS trucks are on 220 now!
> > >
> > >I've heard from DoD folks that the general attitude
> there is to regard hams
> > >as IRRELEVANT. We simply don't fit into thier
> planning or consideration any
> > >more, and we haven't for at least a decade...  just
> look at the current state
> > >of the MARS program if you need proof of the truth
> of that statement.
> > >
> > >
> > >I'm sure that on this we'll just have to "agree to
> disagree", but I found it
> > >to be quite ungenerous to post your comments simply
> because YOU aren't an
> > >AM operator.
> > >
> > >AM has a LONG tradition as a viable and useful mode
> of emission in MANY radio
> > >service, not just on the ham bands. To exile it to
> VHF at this point in
> > history
> > >is a ridiculous proposal, IMHO.
> > >
> > >
> > >73's,
> > >
> > >Tom Adams, W9LBB
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________
> _______
> > 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, Paul
> Courson/wa3vjb
> >
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
> 





More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 12 Dec 2017.