[AMRadio] anti-AM comments re new band allocations

[w9gt at comcast.net]

Dear Doug,

First, let me begin by saying that I wish you no ill will, nor do I have any
quarrel with you exercising your right to express your opinion regarding AM
operation on the ham bands.  Evidently, you have had some personal bad
experience with AM or interference caused by an AM operation.  I am sorry
for that, but I have no way of knowing what your opinions are based upon.  I
do, however, believe that you are sadly mistaken about the nature of AM
operation and of its proponents.  Your comments are potentially very
damaging and one-sided with regard to a mode of operation that many amateurs
enjoy.  I also believe that it is truly a mistake to attempt to use the FCC
as a mediating authority to resolve differences of opinion in the amateur
radio community.  The FCC has repeatedly stated that they regard amateur
radio to be a largely "self-policing" entity, and if we insist on their
intervention in various disputes, we may get more than we bargained for in
the form of increased regulation.  I am not sure, at this point, if I have
any real desire or intent to utilize AM on any of the new proposed bands.  I
do, however, feel that it is a mistake to request that the FCC build in
restrictions on operations in those bands before the amateur community has
had the opportunity to explore this new resource.
I have been a ham for nearly 43 years and an Extra Class for 26 years.  I am
proud to say that I enjoy AM operation and vintage (tube-type) equipment.  I
am also interested in many other aspects of ham radio, including VHF, HF
DXing and Contesting, CW, etc.   I own and enjoy "modern equipment" in
addition to my boatanchors and AM operation.  Believe it or not, it is
possible for one to enjoy so called state-of-the-art modes and equipment and
at the same time enjoy preserving some of those modes and forms of operation
that have been around since the beginning.  One of the truly great aspects
of our hobby and of the "fraternity" of ham radio is the great diversity and
tremendous opportunity for many different interests and specialties to exist
under the heading of amateur radio.  It is unfortunate that some groups,
such as AMers, seem to be continually on the defensive because certain other
groups in the "perceived majority" disagree with their operation.  AMers
have even placed certain voluntary restrictions on themselves with the
establishment of very small "AM windows" and gentlemen's agreements to
minimize problems or interference with other modes.  The percentage of
bandwidth occupied by these "windows" is quite small compared to the total
band space available.  Unfortunately, certain SSB groups who are generally
anti-AM are very vocal in their opposition and regularly participate in
malicious interference.  They crowd up to the edges of "AM windows" or even
zero beat AM signals and then incessantly complain about how "wide" the AM
signals are and how they are causing interference.  So-called "splatter" can
sometimes be caused by improperly adjusted AM transmitters, however, there
are a number of other causes for perceived interference which originate in
the observer's receivers.  These include receiver overloading and use of
certain noise blankers which accentuate interference from nearby strong
adjacent channel stations.  Many of these interference problems could be
simply and quickly resolved by picking an alternate frequency.
Anyway, Doug, I just wanted you to realize that all AMers are not selfish,
band hogging-nut cases that are contributing to the downfall of amateur
radio!  There are many people who enjoy AM operation and wish to preserve
it, and this group may be much larger than you think.  Please try to
understand that the diversity which this represents is something that should
be encouraged, not jeopardized by childish bickering thrown in the laps of
regulatory agencies such as the FCC for resolution.  I noticed in your QRZ
listing that you enjoy CW operation , as do I.  As an example, how would you
like it if a group of phone enthusiasts insisted that CW is an outmoded form
of operation that "has no place on the amateur bands?"
Thank you for taking the time to read this.  My comments are offered in the
spirit of positive and friendly cooperation and mutual respect.

Sincerely,

Jack C. Shutt, W9GT
----- Original Message -----
From: <amradio-request at mailman.qth.net>
To: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 3:01 AM
Subject: AMRadio digest, Vol 1 #186 - 1 msg


> Send AMRadio mailing list submissions to
> amradio at mailman.qth.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> amradio-request at mailman.qth.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> amradio-admin at mailman.qth.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of AMRadio digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Anti-AM Comment Posted (Donald Chester)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> From: "Donald Chester" <k4kyv at hotmail.com>
> To: amradio at mailman.qth.net
> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 03:45:46 +0000
> Subject: [AMRadio] Anti-AM Comment Posted
> Reply-To: amradio at mailman.qth.net
>
>
>
> COPIED FROM POSTED FILINGS RE DOCKET 02-98 ON THE FCC WEBSITE:
>
>
> I truly appreciate the latest allocations offered in this NPRM. I
> have always hoped we could find a spot in the VLF portion of the
> spectrum for experimentation.
> In the case of the 5.25 to 5.4 mhz band, I would ask that the lower
> end, 5.25 to 5.3 mhz be allocated to weak signal and CW emissions
> to allow further use of the unique propagation available, with SSB
> phone and digital users above.
> I would like to see a 200 watt power limit applied
> to ALL modes across the new band.
> Use of AM (double sideband with carrier) should be limited or not
> allowed due to the wideband nature of those signals and seemingly
> concurent spatter and spurious emissions. AM has outlived its
> usefulness and I belive, has no place on today's crowed phone bands.
> Or, as a compromise, enforce some sort of bandwidth limitation that
> would require a total signal width equal to that of a properly
> adjusted Single Sideband transmision, as was done in the past
> with Narrow Band FM. A 3 khz total bandwidth standard could be
> effective, and would certainly reduce the tendency of AM signals
> to occupy a large amount of band space with a small number of
> users. Maximum enjoyment for the largest number of amateurs
> is hardly compatable with presence of 6-10 khz wide AM signals
> on the new band. While I understand the AM group to be a loud and
> prolific comment source, I dont feel they represent a sufficiently
> large portion of the Amateur Radio resource. Therefore, keeping
> AM in it's present spectrum seems in order.
> As an active member of the Army Mars Program, we have used the 5 mhz
> spectrum successfully with digital modes, and been pleased with it's
> ability to carry excellent signals over long distances. I feel the
> digital modes should be authorized also. With the narrow band
> modulation schemes now available, many signals can use a small bit
> of spectrum, much like CW.
> Perhaps access to the new band could be limited to General Class and
> above, providing a bit of incentive for new licensees to upgrade and
> learn more about our great hobby.
> Thank you
> Doug Dunn, K7YD
> Livingston, MT
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMRadio mailing list
> AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
>
>
> End of AMRadio Digest