[AMRadio] FW: [nmqrp] very important


Rob Atkinson ranchorobbo at gmail.com
Thu Apr 2 19:20:20 EDT 2015


ARRL just cannot seem to ever leave things alone.  I think they must
suffer from relevance inferiority.  I am not happy with the digital
lids operating their "image" noise right in the analog phone bands and
I'd be for this if absolutely all digital were quarantined to some
sub-band.  I think modern digital is completely incompatible with
analog.  The old SSTV and RTTY were recognizable and okay but the
modern digital is white noise 5 kc wide and who knows what it really
is.  Since I have no way of determining what it is I am hearing,
beyond knowing it isn't AM or slopbucket, or CW, I default to assuming
it may not even be a ham, or it may be noise from a part 15 device,
maybe a leaky cable TV coax, and I go ahead and operate as if it isn't
there.

By the way, the same problem exists in the medium wave AM broadcast
band with the IBOC noise from some stations wiping out analog AM
stations.  But the ARRL plan doesn't seem to address the ham version
of the problem.  They take an out by calling the phone subband,
"phone/image"  as if it is okay to transmit digital noise as long as
you are using a computer to transmit a picture.   Now we seem to have
slopbucketeers with plastic radios and computers blasting noise and
you can't even tell who or what they are because even worse, the old
CW ID requirement has been done away with.  I'd be okay with the
digital if the QRMing lids could be identified.  All that is needed is
a change to their computer software so a CW ID is transmitted at the
tail end of every digital transmission, like it used to be.   There
would be no inconvenience since the transmission is ending anyway.
For now, if a ham wants me to know he is a ham and legitimate, he will
have to identify in a way I can copy.  I am not about to go purchase
costly digital decoding gear because all the digital emitters out
there can't be bothered to identify in a basic way.  By the way I have
commented on all this before to ARRL and in FCC filing when the
"symbol bit rate" thing came up, or whatever it was called.  Of course
I was ignored.

 I am not against commenting to ARRL but what is _really_ important is
commenting to the FCC when this thing winds up as a notice of proposed
rule making.  I thank AM radio reflector for letting me get a few
thoughts off my chest.

73

Rob
K5UJ

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:21 PM,  <oldradio at comcast.net> wrote:
> Here's another point of view worth reading.
>
>    http://wireless-girl.com/ARRLletter.html


More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 19 Nov 2017.