[AMRadio] trouble Brewing in AM Window


Todd, KA1KAQ ka1kaq at gmail.com
Thu Dec 12 13:14:46 EST 2013


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:18 PM, <kc9cdt at aol.com> wrote:

>
> My comment on the code was a short version of what I really meant.
> It used to be a challenge to get a license, most of the types that we are
> dealing with just stayed with CB as they were too lazy to put in the work,
> which fits their personality.
>
> The comment about code in no way was meant to be a slap on anyone that
> currently got a license in the no code world.
> But relaxing the requirements on the tests including no code allowed SOME
> to get a license that would not have one today otherwise.
>

Seems the opposite is true: intentional interference to AM stations was FAR
worse when the code requirement was in place. If your logic about the code
having an impact on jamming is to be applied, we'd have to blame the 'know
code' operators for so much interference being caused in the years before
it was removed and thank the no code group for the improvement. Obviously
the 'blame the lack of code' argument doesn't hold water.


> What we really need is FCC to step back to the plate.
>

I disagree, and as Mike(y) & others have indicated - be careful what you
wish for here.

The FCC has its hands full dealing with actual 'important' (as in 'life &
death') radio services on a 24/7 basis. They're responsible for checking
compliance and tracking down interference with aircraft, police, fire, EMS,
maritime, etc etc etc. The last thing they need or want is to be pestered
by what comes across as a bunch of poorly behaved kids fighting over some
'hobby' radio service. If it gets to a point where they have to weigh in
and deal with it, you'll see results not unlike a parent intervening with
two children: they won't care who started it, they'll simply act. In the
long run, this can add to problems we've already had to deal with over
power levels, bandwidth, or whatever else someone decides to pounce on in
the process. And as others have made clear, we have *more than a few* bad
AMers out there who provide ample cause to put the mode under equal
scrutiny.

That's not to say that the FCC shouldn't be expected to keep an eye on
things as they do, merely that the amateur service has always been seen as
'self-policing' and expected to be such over the years. There has been and
continues to be plenty of enforcement, even if not focused on some
AM-related issue.

I'm curious as to how long you've been licensed, Lee? I've only been a ham
for just over 30 years but I've heard intentional interference since Day 1
and even well before. It was far worse in the 80s-90s toward AM and even
worse in the 60s-70s. AM has gained in popularity a lot over the last
decade-plus, and interference issues are a fraction of what they once
were.

In fact, why this is even being discussed is beyond me. It's nothing new,
it's happened before and will happen again. Stirring people up over it
solves nothing other than to perhaps encourage some of the more easily-led
types to take the "I'll show THEM" attitude and respond with like behavior.
I guess it also provides a 21st century opportunity online to have those
discussions of yesteryear where some old fudds would sit around on the same
frequency every day discussing their dentures, liver spots, or pissing and
moaning about XYZ. No denture issues here, but I'm glad I got to join in.
(o:

As Warren and many others have said - Ignore people who try to interfere
with you. Never acknowledge them in any way, on the air or online. Use
enough power to have a comfortable contact. Avoid idiots (on the air and in
everyday life, for that matter). Operate elsewhere and go on about life.
It's a hobby, after all.

~ Todd,  KA1KAQ/4


More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 24 Nov 2017.