|[AMRadio] K7YD attacks AM operators|
bcarling at cfl.rr.com
Sun Apr 29 17:05:47 EDT 2007
It's really easy to attack someone if you don't name them, and
just make up some accusation for some general thing that the
un-named person suppsedly did. Let's see how well his narrow
filter works when the unattended robot station is running 3 KW
and only 5 or 10 miles from his QTH.
I wonder if K7YD has ANY information about these un-named
persons he is accusing of illegal activity?
Kind of funny to make these accusations against AM ops
and others, and then lecture hams on how they should not
argue among themselves and be divided in the very same
He writes that "Trying to lock up any part of any band to the
benefit of few will hurt us all in the end." OK - but then Doug
criticizes those who are trying to do something to stop it...
CC: K7YD, AM RADIO
Doug Dunn, K7YD writes:
doug at ycsi.net
Ron and the rest:
What blows me away is that the very people complaining
loudly about "robot QRM" on the CW bands are some the same
ones who will routinely plop a big fat overmodulated
AM signal right in the middle of the 75 meter band,
to heck with any SSB ops who may be in QSO nearby.
It's the "nostalgic, warm, friendly mode"!! It's
ok to be 16-25 khz wide when it's AM, but we are
"broadcast quality old man". Sure, AM's got a "right"
to be there too, but isnt it just a touch immoral to
be a bandwidth hog on a chock full phone band?
Robots are a beast also, and allowing them to bounce
from one freq to the next, without any care for
existing use is wrong.
Most of the CW bunch, myself included have been around
a while and can (should) be able to work around or through
"robot" QRM. Narrow the filter, shift freq a touch, we
all know how to do it. My idea is for us to bellyache
less and operate more. The Robot ops will get the point
when their data is full of reframes and dosent work on
a given freq. We have trouble here in MT/ID with
pactor interference to our NTS CW net, but we get through
it, and they go away.
A true friend of mine who worked for FCC in the past
said: "If Hams would quit fighting amongst themselves
and unite as one against any external organization, they
would win the argument, hands down." I think he may
have been right.
True, there is a lot of money rolling around out there in
the radio world. Many manufacturers are prying on the
door to get into the market, especially the digital comms
part of our hobby. Can we do anything about that? Not
much. If you dont like it, DONT BUY THEIR GEAR! If
a ship on the high seas has a licensed amateur on staff, guess
what? That ham can set up on Winlink and they're off
and running. Is someone going to sit and decode all
the pactor II and III bursts just to see if it's
commercial traffic? Nope.
My fear is that FCC will soon tire of the hassle and we'll
end up with channelized freqs for ANY emission type. That's
not what would best benefit the hobby. Trying to lock up
any part of any band to the benefit of few will hurt us all
in the end. This is no different than the effort a few years
back trying to nail down 60 meters for an AM band. It was
a selfish move and went nowhere. But, made the folks pushing
that idea look like monkeys.
My thinking is: Technology is the primary mover and the camel
in the tent here. To blame the League, the "Robot" ops,
RTTY ops or any other group by emission is counter productive.
But, if ya just cant resist being aggravated over something
you have little contol of, then get after it! If we continue
to step on the tail of FCC, one day that dragon will turn and
it wont be too sweet.
Read the new proposal when it comes out, hammer it into
shape when given the opportunity. There were ONLY 1100
comments filed on the original. Given that we now number
in the neighborhood of 700,000, that level of response
is chickenfeed! Apathy gets us nowhere. Offer rational,
well thought out comments and solutions. Make your voice
heard. I hope next time, there would be 110,000 comments.
Dont allow the few to set policy for the majority.
Think it over.
73 to all
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 18 Oct 2017.