[AMRadio] ARRL President Hates AM

[Bob Bruhns]

Hmmm, so some official running NBFM (at 12-16 KHz bandwidth) was talking about how all hams should be restricted to 3 KHz bandwidth?  I wonder whether the repeater clubs and APRS, packet, satellite and ATV operators know about this.

But we should just let this kind of noise blow over...  it will.  The ARRL has been much more supportive of AM in recent years.

  Bacon, WA3WDR


Donald Chester wrote:
> 
> I just talked with a Texas station who told me about a recent conversation
> with ARRL President Jim Haynie, W5JBP, whom
> he described as "extremely disdainful" of AM. He said that Haynie was
> pushing for some kind of bandwidth rule from the FCC
> that would effectively outlaw AM by imposing a maximum 3 kHz limit on all
> amateur signals regardless of mode. I e-mailed him
> for more information, and our correspondence follows:
> 
> (Name and c/s omitted to protect my source) said:
> 
> Yes Don that is what Jim said in a 2 meter conversation the other day... He
> thinks that the way the Canadians are treating their
> bandwidth is the way to go in the US at 3Khz wide...His proposal is run what
> mode you want anywhere in the band so long as
> it is not more than 3 wide... He said that the Canadians are limited on
> their AM to 3 KHz... I know we have all spoken to
> Canadians on AM...Are they just snubbing the rule??? I will have future
> conversations with Jim and keep folks apprised but he
> did say it to God and all on the repeater...He does not like the AM mode and
> really gets on some of us here who have
> connversations about AM on the repeater... But as you realize he blows a lot
> of smoke!!!! Will keep you informed.
> 
> My reply:
> 
> I think he is just blowing smoke, and he is uninformed. Yes, there IS a rule
> on the books in Canada that limits AM to 6 Kc and
> SSB to 3 kc. Jim is confusing the total bandwidth of AM with the bandwidth
> of the audio used to modulate the signal. Makes
> you stop and think when the President of ARRL shows such lack of technical
> expertise, eh?
> 
> Canadian AM'ers run pretty much the audio they want. I have never heard of
> anyone getting a citation for excessive bandwidth.
> Canadians run converted broadcast transmitters with no special bandwidth
> filters. Apparently, the bandwidth limit is looked
> upon as nominal, not something to be strictly enforced like they enforce
> speed limits on our military bases. Canadian regulators
> don't seem to want to be bothered enforcing minute technical details that
> exist in the amateur rules. When asked, they have
> basically told the VE's, "do what you want as long as you stay out of
> trouble and we won't bother you." Kinda like our "don't
> ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the military.
> 
> Jim is comparing apples to oranges and basing his proposition on his
> misinterpretation of the Canadian regs. I don't think this is
> an immediate threat, but it is important for the AM community to be aware of
> the attitude of the president of our national
> amateur radio organisation towards AM. The ARRL presidency seems to be
> basically an honorary position, with the president
> a figurehead with little power to make policy decisions. Nevertheless, he is
> in a position to exert influence no matter how
> misinformed, so this is still a matter of concern.
> 
> Don K4KYV
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AMRadio mailing list
> AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio