[AMRadio] trouble Brewing in AM Window

Bry Carling bcarling at cfl.rr.com
Thu Dec 12 13:23:14 EST 2013

Todd my guess is that most of the 800,000 no ciders are not on HF - bubt rather are using 
VHF FM and maybe digital modes etc.

I do howver, have one amateur friend who waited all those years to get his Extra until quite 
recently when he realized that the CODE requirement had been done away. Now he finds 
that with the new segments he has been allowed into, his love for CW has bveen rekindled!

He told me he took the test by drumming the answers into his head in an online "taining 
course" for the Extra and did not understand any o f it, but got to where he could regurgitate 
the answers. It's like most of our edjumacation these days (which is more like credentialling) 
and it partly explains why we have fallen to sometrhing like 25th place in the world in maths 
and science.

Bry Carling AF4K

On 12 Dec 2013 at 13:14, Todd, KA1KAQ wrote:

Date sent:      	Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:14:46 -0500
From:           	"Todd, KA1KAQ" <ka1kaq at gmail.com>
To:             	kc9cdt at aol.com
Copies to:      	Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service 
<amradio at mailman.qth.net>
Subject:        	Re: [AMRadio] trouble Brewing in AM Window

> 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
> ______________________________________________________________
> Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AMRadio mailing list
> Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/
> List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net
> with
> the word unsubscribe in the message body.
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list:
> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 18 Feb 2018.