[AMRadio] RE: Gentlemen, Start your engines - file comments now!


Bry Carling bcarling at cfl.rr.com
Mon Mar 26 08:26:18 EST 2007


Thanks for your comments, Jim. Interesting thoughts on all 
of this...

Jim, N6OTQ writes:

> I would get more excited about this if I had a real station and I operated HF every night, and if we weren't at the bottom of the sunspot cycle.  Ask me again in a few 
> years. 

It will be too late by then. Libertarianism taken to extreme coul bring 
you "the wild west" and vigilante justice. 

In the scenario above, JIm - you will likely come back to find bands 
full of digital garbage. It's not so much that anyone objects to the digital 
modes being on HF.
No - rather it is the deliberate CONDONING and FACILITATING 
of very, very bad operating practice by a select few of 
these wantonly obnoxious operators by the ARRL Board which
has continued unabated, against the clearly stated wishes of
the majority of the membership over the past 3 or 4 years.

You can easily read all about this on qrz.com and in other forums.

Your points about the overly-wide AM signals are understandable.
Again, that is a very very tiny minority spoiling things for other people. 
6 to 9 kHz of bandwidth is enough for any amateur AM signal.

Unlike the DIGITAL miscreants, these guys do not operate 
frequency-agile 3KW equipment which pops up all over the HF bands
like the Winlink-Pactor noise does.... if you think wide AM is bad,
watch the bands after the ARRL and FCC are finished with
the future direction they have mapped out for us. 

If you thought the HF "Woodpecker" was annoying back in the 1970s,  
you haven't seen anything yet.   You would pretty soon not even WANT 
to operate SSB any more!

HF Ham radio is going to effectively be reduced to only
allowing "internet via radio waves" SOON, unless SOMEONE
reins in the neurotic behavior of the smoke-filled room in 
Newington.

Jim's other comments (below) are interesting but it would be wise to 
watch ANY new proposal coming out of Newington these days.

By the way Jim, if CB is the example of self-regulation, then we are all in trouble!
(grin)

Jim writes: (QUOTE)
>Yes, one of the ongoing problems involved in the pointless regulation by 
bandwidth but not by mode is the "high-fidelity" AM being transmitted (well, 
broadcast) by a select number of over-amplified and under-brained hams who 
missed the boat in 1959 to be a deejay for one of the "X" radio stations in Mexico ... 
where Wolfman Jack allegedly got his walking shoes.

>It's the spurs on their 120% positive and 95% negative modulation, their audio 
equalization that puts needless energy outside the 300 - 3000 Hz usable speech 
voice band, and the overprocessing and sound effects that sound like bigtime in the 
AM BCB but really have no place in the ham bands.

>If we needed that sort of thing, we'd just let the Indonesian broadcasters pump 
things up another 12,000 kilowatts in 40 meters.  Per station.

>You can have top-quality AM within the existing limits, including the 1500 watt 
PEP max.  But most of these folks aren't even respecting the PEP limit, much less 
traditional bandwidth limits.  But they sure sound great!  Loud, too.  And while it's 
not as annoying as a digital signal that hashes out an entire sub-band, it's still air 
pollution, and still unlawful.

>The FCC has cited a very few of the worst offenders, but it hasn't particularly 
helped.  

>My stance -- we should all be responsible for sensible bandwidth usage.  A 5 kHz 
AM signal is somewhat piggish compared to SSB, but at a reasonable power level 
(minimum power necessary for reliable communication, per FCC since about 1920) 
I can move over ... or join in. But when you're transmitting an audio signal from 50 
to 15,000 Hz on two sidebands, plus the full-power carrier?  3/4 of that can't even be 
heard by most receivers, but it still pollutes the air and prevents using any 
frequency within 10 kHz of the carrier.

>I'm all for freedom of the air, but we have to share and conserve our limited, 
valuable resources.

JIM, THAT is exactly what we need to ask the FCC to DO, instead of allowing 
ARRL to legalize a few irresponsible ops that want to run roughshod over 
everyone else! If you think that you can reason with these WINLINK
people, then more power to you, because scores of hams, perhaps hundreds 
have tried over the past 4 years and they refuse to act in a responsible manner.

>It's like driving a 40-foot wide house down the highway.

((( A GREAT DESCRIPTION OF PACTOR - WINLINK on HF!! )))

>I do have a little more sympathy for the wide-band AMers, because they could 
tweak down their signal with a few knob turns or resistor additions in the audio 
section.  Digital and non-voice modes, on the other hand, need to be managed by 
sub-bands.

>I would get more excited about this if I had a real station and I operated HF every 
night, and if we weren't at the bottom of the sunspot cycle.  Ask me again in a few 
years.   Meantime, I question why both the ARRL and FCC appear to have rejected 
subband regulation and band management.  As a Libertarian, I especially question 
why the ARRL hasn't adopted a stronger stance for voluntary self-regulation and an 
orderly band management policy.  This has worked in the past.  For that matter -- 
even CBers do a reasonably good job of self-enforced band management, but their 
punitive actions are always of a questionable nature.

>Jim N6OTQ





More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 14 Dec 2017.