[AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire

[Brian Carling]

The neat thing is that in the hundreds of comments on this subject 
over the past few weeks, 
the ones with the anti-social attitude that are behind this latest 
boondoggle proposal from the ANTI-RADIO REGRESSION  
LEAGUE...

This was all in an earlier thread where the little PRO-Bandwidth 
Proposal Group got thoroughly stomped by the rest.

In that discussion there was pretty much no hostile 
comment against AM.

http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=107079

50 Pages of well-reasoned discussion (in most cases) and
rebuttal by the people who have experienced the MENACE that 
K4CJX, KQ6XA  and their petty,  "Anti-amateur-radio-as-we-know-
it" crowd are trying to FORCE on amateur radio.

You will find VERY few supporters of this Bandwidth Proposal.
The whole thing needs to be rejected lock, stock and barrel.
I have left ARRL because of this, and the other (many) things they 
have done over the  past few years to ruin amateur radio.

They are NOT listening, and they are NO LONGER "Of, By and 
For the Radio Amateur."

They are now Of, By and For the Commercial, Digital Special 
Interest Lobby headed by K4CJX and Winlink Pactor which has 
totally over-ruled sound judgement in regards to the rules 
governing automatic unattended HF digital stations

The following is the BACKDROP to the lunacy that is now 
prevailing in ARRL's Proposal (WHICH I understand may be  
actually with the ENCOURAGEMENT AND COMPLICITY of FCC)

http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html

A torpedo fired into the heeart of AM would NOT be out of step with 
the kind of MANIPULATION that is already going on behind the 
scenes. OR just the threat of it to intimidate others into getting on 
board this train to hell in a hand basket.

Your mileage may vary. My mileage will mostly stick with 
preserving the right to HOMEBREW, and to operate AM 
and CW without QRM from the PAC PESTS that belong 
on VHF and above.

On 5 Dec 2005 at 0:33, Donald Chester wrote:
 
> I think we could have reasonably well predicted this:
> 
> "...Perhaps the one thing most egregious to digital proponents in the ARRL 
> bandwidth plan has been an exemption in the 3.5khz band segment for AM.  Mr. 
> Rotolo confirms that this exception has raised quite a ruckus in the digital 
> community. It begs the question, if an exception is created for AM why not 
> an exception for 25khz data..."
> 
> "...Perhaps the petition shows undue favoritism for AM phone. Instead of 
> that, a better way would be a 10kHz bandwidth overlay in parts of larger HF 
> ham bands at REDUCED AVERAGE POWER LEVEL(emphasis mine) This would allow AM 
> but not preclude other transmission methods with similar bandwidth occupancy 
> effects. Obviously, the ARRL has bowed to tradition in these areas in their 
> efforts to accommodate the status quo."
> 
> http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=108389
> 
> Don k4kyv
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> AMRadio mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami