[AMRadio] anti-AM comments re new band allocations

Thu Jun 20 11:54:12 EDT 2002

Here Here,
Jim
WB2FCN
ALL MODES ALL FREQUENCIES

----- Original Message -----
From: <w9gt at comcast.net>
To: <doug at ycsi.net>
Cc: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 10:54 AM
Subject: [AMRadio] anti-AM comments re new band allocations


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMRadio mailing list
> AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
>