[AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire

[peter markavage]

I agree. It's probably better they battle each other screen to screen
rather than filling the air waves with all their personal agendas.

Pete, wa2cwa

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 18:25:30 -0800 "Bob Macklin" <macklinbob at msn.com>
writes:
> I see more activity on the QRZ and eHam message boards then I hear on 
> my
> receivers.
> 
> And it is probably just as well!
> 
> Bob Macklin
> K5MYJ
> Seattle, Wa.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "peter markavage" <manualman at juno.com>
> To: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 6:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
> 
> 
> > Did you actually count how many "different" people actually 
> commented on
> > these 50 pages? These "rejectors" of the proposal account for less 
> than
> > .1%  of the ham population. Show me better numbers and I'll have 
> some
> > sympathy for your concern. Teller's comments also are almost three 
> years
> > old. The proposal has gone through several iterations since then. 
> Some of
> > the alternative proposals that are now being proposed on QRZ by 
> these
> > ARRL proposal "rejectors" actually could provide much more harm to 
> AM.
> > The ARRL proposal actually preserves our legacy mode out to 9KHz.
> >
> > Pete ,wa2cwa
> >
> > On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:37:26 -0500 "Brian Carling" 
> <bcarling at cfl.rr.com>
> > writes:
> > >
> > > 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