[AMRadio] Call for Comments (please respond off list)


VJB wa3vjb at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 18 14:26:10 EST 2006


I don't wish to add to the discussion here, being
aware that some people find political activity a
burden on the AM Reflector.

However, please respond directly to the following, and
keep it off the list.

I write to ask whether we can include you among the
Comments against the Petition from the ARRL known as
RM-11306. There is some urgency, because the 30-day
period to respond began January 6th.

This proposal, if enacted, would impose the first-ever
bandwidth constraint against AM, and would provide a
blunt instrument to cause damage by those who wish to
complain about AM activity. The reason?  It would
establish a bandwidth-based segregation on HF, while
failing to specify how to measure compliance. Vague
bandwidth segments would replace the longstanding,
popular method of sub-bands by mode (CW, phone, etc.).
It promises to be an enforcement nightmare for all
modes and activities.

But to our part of it, there are anti-AM comments in
the FCC database now supporting the League's petition.
One, from Mickey Cox, K5MC, is quoted here without
change:

"The ARRL proposes that double sideband amplitude
modulated (DSB-AM) telephony be allowed to continue,
but recommends a necesssary bandwidth of 9 kHz in
order to leave no doubt that DSB-AM transmitters now
in use can continue to be operated. Although there may
be much nostalgia among a number of amateurs to retain
DSB-AM, the FCC should phase out this mode on the
lower amateur bands (e.g. eliminate DSB-AM operations
on all amateur frequencies below 28 MHz by some
definite date). With the power inefficiency and wide
bandwidth characteristics of DSB-AM, it is hard to
justify its continued use on our lower frequency bands
merely for reasons of nostalgia."

Cox happens to be a volunteer ARRL worker ("Section
Manager") in the northern Louisiana area near the
Arkansas border. His comments may reflect his
individual point of view, but he also speaks as a
League official.

We in the AM Community need to file Comments against
the League's Petition, while including some
affirmative statements about AM and its place among
active members of the hobby who enjoy experimenting,
refining their technical skills, and providing
goodwill and a recruitment tool with others. To carry
any weight with the FCC, your remarks must be a point
of view, not just a one-liner of opposition. That's
why I'm trying to explain the approach.

Please let me know if you can write something on
behalf of us all ?  

We have established an email address where your
Comment will be filed on your behalf with the FCC.
Needed, beyond your main points, are your name, call
sign, and callbook address.

StopRM11306 at amfone.net

(also works: stoprm11306 at amfone.net)

The FCC website can also accept your Comments
directly, but it's a bit cumbersome.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/

Under "ECFS Main Links" on the right-hand side of the
screen, click on "Submit a Filing" to file comments.
To view what's already been filed, click on "Search
for Filed Comments." In either case, type "RM-11306"
in the "Proceeding" field. Be sure to include the
hyphen (but not the quotation marks). You may prepare
your Comment on your local computer terminal as a
"word" type document, and file your Comment as an
attachment with the uploading instructions you'll see
on their page. If successful, you then get a
"Confirmation Number," and in a day or two your
Comment is part of the public record.

Thanks very much for your consideration,

Paul/VJB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 15 Dec 2017.