[AMRadio] trouble Brewing in AM Window


W5AMI ars.w5ami at gmail.com
Thu Dec 12 15:00:56 EST 2013


Lee,

It's really not as simple as it sounds.  Unidentified stations causing
malicious interference have to be located on low bands with expensive
direction finding equipment and a lot of man power.  Unlike 2 meters and
above, locating an offending station on say 75 meters is not an easy task,
even for the FCC and their equipment.  The more we bug the FCC, and cost
them money when they do have the time to do these things, the more possible
it is for them to throw their hands up one day and say "to hell with the
amateur radio service"!  Like I said before, IGNORE them!  So many people I
hear these days want to fight them on the air, and no one wins doing that...

73
Brian / w5ami



On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:47 PM, <kc9cdt at aol.com> wrote:

> Brian,
> You are probably right...
> But, this issue is getting bad for lots of us.
>
> Why not get FCC to take care of business in a few cases...word gets around.
> Any night on 75, many tickets could be written.
>
> It's been out of control for a long while.
> Back in early 60's I don't remember much if any of this going on....at
> least only an occasional personality conflict.
>
> 73,
> Lee
>  Lee Simmonds
> Summit DCS LLC
>
> 260-799-4077 Office
> 260-403-6936 Cell
>   -----Original Message-----
> From: W5AMI <ars.w5ami at gmail.com>
> To: Todd, KA1KAQ <ka1kaq at gmail.com>
> Cc: kc9cdt <kc9cdt at aol.com>; Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur
> Service <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Thu, Dec 12, 2013 2:37 pm
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] trouble Brewing in AM Window
>
>    My feelings exactly Todd.
>
>  None of this is anything new.  Maybe to those who have just decided to
> make the plunge into AM now see what we have dealt with for many many
> years.  But, I also belong to a local group on SSB, and we deal with the
> same thing, always have, as far back as I can remember.
>
>  I know it gets under the skin, and people often have to get verbal about
> it on the air, but, it is BEST to ignore it.  You can't argue with an
> idiot, as you will never win that contest.  That's what they want ...a
> REACTION!  Do not give the idiot what he desires, just ignore him, and he
> will eventually go away.
>
>  I would prefer NOT to open the can of worms and call in the OO's, and
> possibly resort to requesting FCC monitoring stations over this thing.  We
> (AMers) don't need any additional scrutiny either.  Hell, I hear people
> messing with CW ops too!  It's not just us AMers!!  Like I said, just
> ignore them!  If you can't hear the other station you are in QSO with, just
> make some excuse to sign, but don't say on the air that the idiot is
> keeping me from hearing you.  If you do, you have then gave him
> satisfaction, and he will be back the next night to do it all over again.
>
> 73
>  Brian / w5ami
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Todd, KA1KAQ <ka1kaq at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>  ______________________________________________________________
>>
>
> --
>  "Who feeds a hungry animal feeds his own soul" - Charles Chaplin
>
>


-- 
"Who feeds a hungry animal feeds his own soul" - Charles Chaplin


More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 17 Nov 2017.