[AMRadio] UNHAPPY OPERATOR

[Donald Chester]

>From : 
>W6PSS at aol.com 	   To : 
>nt7y at qwest.net 	 
>Subject : 
>UNHAPPY OPERATOR 	 
>Date : 
>Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:57:21 EST 	 
>Dear OM,
>    I am one among a number of southern California and Arizona AM operators 
>who operate crystal controlled on 1885 kHz.  We vacated 1815 in the early 
>1980s due to an increased interest in top band by both CW and SSB 
>enthusiasts - no doubt spurred on by the proliferation of quality sets from 
>Japan.
>    During that period, the "AM Press Exchange" magazine coordinated a 
>national effort to select a national calling and working frequency.  The 
>main criterion was that the frequency be clear of any regularly scheduled 
>SSB networks and far enough removed from existing one's that mutual cross 
>modulation could be avoided.  Frequency 1885 kHz emerged as the most viable 
>choice.
 >   Soon the Editor of AMPE, Don Chester K4KYV,  erected a tall tower 
optimized for 1885 and began testing.  Having just erected a hundred foot 
monopole for 160, I began making infrequent contacts with Don.  Under normal 
fall/winter conditions, both west and eastcoast AM stations could operate 
simultaneously with minimal QRM.   Thus,  1885 became the national 160 AM 
window. These days, just before the day/night transition,  K4KYV is often 
heard 40 dB over between 4 and 5 PM PST.  It is true that national SSB 
contacts are more common on this band due to their signal to noise 
advantage.  In fact, last evening I read your mobile friend AI0WA an "S-7" 
after he increased power to 300 Watts near frequency 1885 kHz.  I ceased 
operating.
>     In the past, The AM Press Exchange,  QST and Electric Radio magazines 
>have posted where to find AM operation on the Amateur Bands.  ER continues 
>to do so.  Included with 29, 14.286, 7.290, 3.870, 3.885 and others is 
>1.885 MHz.  Don and other prominent AM operators are annual presenters at 
>Dayton where they also circulate AM literature containing these commonly 
>used frequencies.      This leads to my reason for this advisory Sir.  Your 
>station, among others in your call area, have been heard in recent times 
>operating on SSB in close proximity to AM stations operating on 1885 kHz.  
>Three nights ago, several in our group checked out early after some 
>uncomplimentary comments.  Two, perhaps three, weeks ago a CW QSO started 
>up nearby during an AM gathering on 1885.  One station was
read saying, "Shift to SSB and zero beat the carrier."  Those of us with 
respectable antennas tried to advise the interlopers but to no avail.  Was 
it malice or could it be they didn't hear us?  I lean toward the latter.
>    A similar incident occurred about 3-years ago while I lived near 
>Bremerton.  During a daily national AM net on 14286 kHz, between 0000 and 
>0200 UTC, a group of Utah SSB operators QRM'd us as they initiated "The 
>Utah Emergency Net" in close proximity - within 1 to 1.5 kHz higher in 
>frequency.  I shifted over to SSB and advised them that our AM net had been 
>operating on 14286 at these times for over 40-years!  They acknowledged me 
>but didn't think our existence was significant enough to warrant their 
>moving farther up frequency.  I'm not accusing you of being part of that 
>group that day - I don't know that.  But you can understand my surprise at 
>noting your QTH last evening - no doubt a coincidence.  I appreciate well 
>the purpose for these type of networks.  They help justify our existence 
>and usage of this limited national resource - the radio spectrum.
>     I respectfully ask that you and your colleagues avoid 1885 in the 
>early evening hours unless you join us on AM.  A warm welcome awaits you. 
>Several stations
as far away as Colorado join us often on 1885.
>    Many of us older chaps have a special affinity with 160.  And, that's 
>as it should be - it is the gentleman's band.  My friends look forward to 
>these precious evening hours together and enjoy too the company of a cadre 
>of young and bright AM operators on 1885 kHz.
>     There is room for us all.  But while operating AM we tend to stay 
>together on very few discrete frequencies respecting the congestion on the 
>modern day bands.  As human beings we too are far from perfect.      
>Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration.  Am very impressed 
>with your fine QRZ Bio.  Please tell your friends about us.

>Best 73,
>david w6pss
>cc: K4KYV, N6CSW, W7GMK, W8VYZ, KD0HG    



David,

I  am currently having the same problem on 160.  Since the first of the year 
a new group of slopbuckets has started showing up on 1888 or 1890 in the 
early evening, despite the fact that there has been regular AM activity on 
1885 ever since 160 was returned as a  full-fledged amateur band, and lately 
W8VYZ and others have opened a second front on 1890.  The slopbuckets try 
come in right between the two AM QSO's and then complain about the AM QRM  
even when the band is almost completely devoid of signals +/- 30 kc from the 
"AM window".  Even though I was  less active, I regularly listened from time 
to time before New Year's,  but never heard these stations before.  Since 
late December I have become more active now that I have the Beverage antenna 
in operation, and can copy most 160M AM signals much better through the 
noise.  I now seem  to encounter this SSB problem every night.  It appears 
that  the SSB group has deliberately chosen a frequency in a deliberate 
effort to disrupt existing AM operation on this band.

I am well aware that no-one has a claim over any specific frequency.  No-one 
advocates this  concept more than I do.  I have long opposed the concept of 
"channelisation" of the amateur phone bands. If SSB stations come on first 
and firmly establish a QSO while no-one else is using the frequency, I 
respect their right to the frequency on a first-come-first-served basis, and 
look for another frequency that is in the clear.   On the other hand, I 
usually hear the AM regulars in ongoing QSO, with the slopbuckets attempting 
to quack away in between.  Last night I broke into a QSO on 1885 with WA0ZHH 
and a couple of other Texas stations.  When I signed out of, someone broke 
in with a strong but ricebox quality AM signal and made some  remark like, 
"Why  don't you go stick your head in the toilet and flush it.

We have a coast-to-coast network of AM stations who regularly operate in the 
vicinity of 1885-1890 kc, and there is little likelihood that this is going 
to change any time in the near  future.  I do not intend to refrain from 
joining these stations when I hear them, just because some two-bit 
slopbucket group has decided to try to start a frequency turf war. I do not 
consider it deliberate interference to call into an ongoing AM QSO even 
though I may be aware that the SSB group is nearby and there is a strong 
possibility that I may cause them some interference.

Don K4KYV












_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.