[AMRadio] Trouble Brewing in AM Window


W5AMI ars.w5ami at gmail.com
Fri Dec 13 12:05:49 EST 2013


Bottom line here is; we have been given more room for phone operation, and
this should be getting better instead of worse.  To heck with the so called
AM Window.  We should spread out and operate where we want.  I do however
suggest we be careful and listen above and below within your transmitted
bandwidth and not start up knowing you will interfere with another QSO.

AM has as much right be to on the "Phone" portion as any other voice mode.
Just do your thing and ignore the nuts.

Brian / w5ami



On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Donald Chester <k4kyv at charter.net> wrote:

> I started this  thread hoping to instigate a few more "tall ships" to
> operate in the vicinity of 3885 during the evening hours.  One of the
> reasons the miscreants on 3892 have moved down to 3890 was because of a
> dearth of AM  activity there lately. Whenever I have checked the "window"
> in
> recent weeks, most of the activity seems to have gravitated towards 3875...
> USE IT OR LOSE IT! Remember, the SSB ops have just as much right to be
> there
> as we do.
>
> For many years, we have thought nothing of operating AM with other AM
> signals only 5 kc/s away, often with simultaneous AM QSOs for hours at a
> time on 3875, 3880 and 3885. If we can routinely tolerate the monkey
> chatter
> from other AM signals only 5 kc/s away, certainly we can tolerate the
> monkey
> chatter from a SSB signal that same distance away from our frequency. If
> the SSB ops choose to operate that close to an ongoing AM QSO the QRM is
> mutual; they have to suffer from our monkey chatter just as much as we
> suffer from theirs, while they still have the option of enjoying a more
> QRM-free channel on their original 3892 hangout.  Operating a little too
> close for comfort to another QSO in the ham bands is not an FCC matter,
> since  no rules were broken. Amateur radio by its  very nature operates on
> an interference-expected basis.
>
> The deliberate jamming with SSTV and other garbage is a separate issue, but
> like monkey-chatter from stations 5 kc/s away, this is nothing new. If we
> STRAP AND IGNORE, the culprits will eventually go away in frustration. I
> doubt that FCC agents are going to take a lot of time doing detective work
> to trace down the origin of unidentified signals that are causing
> interference to a group of radio  hobbyists. Just keep your ears open in
> case the culprits slip up and leave a clue to their identity. Once some
> reasonable evidence of the source is discovered,  that would be the  time
> to
> contact the FCC.
>
> Instead of wringing our hands over the "invasion" of the mythical "AM
> window", we need to simply make it a point to operate more AM in the
> vicinity of 3885, while avoiding any over-the-air mention of the situation
> but making sure we observe good operating practice at all  times.
>
> As Rob said, we now need to focus our attention on the Baud Rate petition.
> We have only about a week left to file comments before the deadline. Last
> night I skimmed over some of the 400-odd comments  submitted so far, and
> see
> many submissions pro- and  con. One comment grabbed my attention in
> particular; the writer suggested that AM phone be limited to a maximum
> bandwidth of 8 kc/s. Many of those on both sides of the Baud-rate issue are
> suggesting that a "better"  solution to the problem might be to revive the
> regulation by bandwidth proposal, instead of further revamping  the present
> system of regulation by mode-of-emission. I think many will agree  with me
> that we should be extremely leery of any move towards  specific bandwidth
> limits to signals of any kind on our HF bands.
>
> Don k4kyv
>
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
"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.