[AMRadio] Is AM a special case, or is it "just another mode"?

[rbethman]

That is because the dang thing came through BROKE.

<http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QST/This%20Month%20in%20QST/September%202013/ 
ItSeemsToUs.pdf>

I got it AND I'm not a member.

Bob - N0DGN

On 7/31/2013 5:40 PM, W2XJ wrote:
> I am a member but still can not open the link.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 31, 2013, at 5:28 PM, "K5MYJ" <macklinbob at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't read the editorial because I am not a member of the ARRL!
>>
>> Is the ARRL trying to eliminate AM as an operating mode again?
>>
>> There is no problem with AM here on the Left Coast.
>>
>> Bob Macklin
>> K5MYJ
>> Seattle, Wa.
>> "Real Radios Glow In The Dark"
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Chester" <k4kyv at charter.net>
>> To: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:08 PM
>> Subject: [AMRadio] Is AM a special case, or is it "just another mode"?
>>
>>
>>> A debate has flared up in some ham radio discussion circles, triggered by a
>>> QST editorial, whether AM should be regarded as a "legacy" or "speciality"
>>> mode, or if it's "just another mode", nothing more than one more button to
>>> push on a transceiver. If it's the latter, then what is the purpose of these
>>> AM websites and mailing  lists in the first place? Why not just stay with
>>> e-Ham and QRZ.com?  This discussion has not been heard on the air and
>>> remains largely amongst what I like to call "cyber hams" whose presence is
>>> visible on the internet, but whom you rarely if ever hear on the radio.
>>>
>>> My take on the issue is that we can't afford to be "special" or
>>> "exceptional" in the sense that AM privileges are granted only in a
>>> footnote, permitting the mode to exist as an "exception" to the general
>>> rules, as was proposed under the now-defunct ARRL bandwidth petition, and
>>> presently listed in the non-binding IARU Band Plans. Were that the case, AM
>>> could easily be eliminated altogether with the stroke of a pen or  the click
>>> of a mouse, by simply erasing the footnote. AM privileges must remain firmly
>>> embedded in the FCC rules as one of the mainstream modes of operation. But
>>> to those of us who operate AM, there is more to the mode than just another
>>> button to push on a radio. The present day AM community includes probably
>>> one of the  last remaining vestiges of what has existed for close to a
>>> century as genuine amateur radio. Amateur radio is more than just
>>> "communications"  that we could just as easily carry out using a cell phone.
>>>
>>> Equally disconcerting is the premise that "we must adapt to the 21st
>>> century", a buzz-word I see of late whenever a topic like bandwidth
>>> limitation, or plastic radios/appliance operation vs. home-building/vintage
>>> AM comes up for discussion. In reality, adapting to the 21st century is a
>>> strong argument AGAINST bandwidth limitation, since congestion on HF has
>>> clearly decreased over the past 15 years or so, to the point that it's
>>> largely a non-issue to-day, despite the inflated numbers of licensees in the
>>> FCC data base. As to-day's high school kid would put it, "that bandwidth
>>> obsession is SOooo twentieth century".
>>>
>>> The QST editorial can be viewed at
>>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QST/This%20Month%20in%20QST/September%202013/
>>> ItSeemsToUs.pdf  The trigger mechanism was the reference to the infamous
>>> bandwidth Docket 20777, which as originally proposed would have eliminated
>>> AM on all amateur frequencies below 28.5 mc/s.
>>>
>>> Don k4kyv
>>>