The AM Forum

Here is an excerpt from an e-mail I just received.  No comment from me at this time other than to take it for what you think it is worth.

Hi Don,

 This whole bandwidth issue has everybody jumping, i've been hostile with it myself a time or two, I'm going to wait to see what the geniuses come out with then i'll decide my next move... there's Still time to Grab them at Dayton and Voice an Opinion with them for anyone going...

My take is that his "section leader" should go back and read the proposal correctly. Read, understand, and then transmit.

Quote from the ARRL site:


For the full updated text:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1
or read the previous threads on the AM Forum under ARRL.

My take is that the league should go find something important to do. This stuff reminds me of the CB groups in the 70's who gave out numbers to paying members.
VHF bandplans are a success but H.F. is another thing.

QTF is the deal with this bandwidth regulation?  It is so ignorant to regulate an experimental service by bandwidth.......Who thought this BS up?  Why are they even considering bandwidth limitations?  What are we missing here?.......CW is no longer a dominant mode,You don't even have to know how to dit dah for a license and well over half the spectrum is still dedicated to the mode........AM is more popular now than it has been for the last 20 years and the "League" is behind a move to limit bandwidth!!  Its horseshit plain and simple....as I see it...I'd like someone to explain it to me.....Steve KL7OF

When 9 khz bandwidth is outlawed, only outlaws will have 9khz bandwidth.

Guys,

The sky is not falling! Jack and Don have the right idea. Wait until the ARRL files the proposal and then is the time to react, in the comment phase. I believe that further discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of this thing is a waste of time right now.

I do suggest that everyone evaluate if, in their own mind, they need to support an organization that comes forward with a proposal like this. My $39 says hell no!

Hey guys, did you hear that Newington Connecticut is the code name for Camp David? Pass it on, preferably to someone you know in Afghanistan!

--Larry W8ER

I wonder how long the amateur radio service would last without the organization.



Thanks Larry. Another great reason to continue the support.

Name one thing the ARRL has done in the past 20 years that has PREVENTED the demise of amateur radio ??

Larry's right....... let them file their ignorance then beat it to a pulp during the comment phase. Considering they only represent 25% of the amateurs..........

"I wonder how long the amateur radio service would last without the organization."

All this doubletalk with exemptions and restrictions is yet another smoke screen for an increased regulatory climate. The FCC has resoundingly responded to this attitude already.

I think amateur radio would last longer without the promulgation of ill considered and/or biased regulations attacking a charter element of amateur radio.  If the ARRL is the mechanism for such folly, this is one ARRL life member who thinks the institution should be reorganized to focus on advancing the service, or replaced.

My response to the ARRL is: Go ahead, make my day.

-ap

If two (to be kind) operators can petition for an increase in regulatory climate . . . I wonder what would happen if a group requested a reduction in regulation? Say, to a format like Canada and essentially, the rest of the world. The powerful arguments that have been presented for this position would decrease the enforcement load on the FCC, it would be better for the service, etc.  . . .
I do not simply want to shoot down the ARRL proposal or settle for status quo. I want common sense regulation aligned with the rest of the amateur world.

opinions? participants?

-ap

Art,

I do not know the process but it can't be rocket science!

and Pete CWA ... you personally, with your boatanchor manual service, have done more for ham radio than the ARRL.  


--Larry W8ER

I'm in..... I'll add my "voice".

(quote)

I think amateur radio would last longer without the promulgation of ill considered and/or biased regulations attacking a charter element of amateur radio.  If the ARRL is the mechanism for such folly, this is one ARRL life member who thinks the institution should be reorganized to focus on advancing the service, or replaced.


I agree!!! The league needs to reorganize on this one ...I like the Canadian type rules.........Simple, easy to understand and enforce.....much less beauracracy, and they allow for all modes......

Larry . . . you are right! researching the application process is first. run with that ball for now and I will parallel process for the next steps . . . prolly means getting a lawyer to put it in the correct format . . . I'll be smarter after some research . . .

My sense is we have positive consensus on this board (a leap considering the few responses but not when previous comments are included in the mix. . .). How to we include other groups?


-ap

How about someone draft a letter on this board and we all attach our calls to it then send it to the FCC. Each person could vote to have their call attached.
I don't see why there needs to be a change when there are less hams
anyway. Ham radio will become the oo police state if the bandwidth is reduced.
Gee if we all sound like crap that will really attract new hams who want to sound like crap too.

Art and others,

Is this something that you wish to do openly on the AM Forum?

Comments and additional participants ... ???

--Larry

I just read this email message on another popular reflector.  So considering all the discussion of the subject and charges and countercharges that some of us have not read the proposal, I went to the ARRL website and reread the proposal.  

I believe our real concern is that the proposal does not specify in it's body that the bandwidth necessary for AM is present.  Also, while the proposal says 160 meters won't change, that is not in their graphical presentation.  AM is treated as a "special exemption" rather than a bandwidth mode except on 10 meters where it is lumped in with FM at 16 Kc.  

The real rub with this proposal is the fact that automatic stations will be allowed to operate without necessary controls to prevent interference.  This is REALLY the place the ARRL is dropping the ball.  Even on the commercial bands, an operator is required to monitor a frequency before transmitting to prevent interference.  Should the ARRL want to allow automatic stations, they should require the automatic station have a monitor receiver that, when activity is present on the automatic station's transmit frequency, would prevent the automatic station from transmitting.

One thing that AM operators should insist is that those sections of the band where voice of any type is allowed, would accomadate up to 9 or 10 Kc bandwidths in those phone sections.  It would be easy for the FCC, at the ARRL's urging, to confine AM transmissions to a "window" on any or all of the bands below 30 Mc.

This discussion only deals with the proposal in it's present form not whether it should be opposed in it's entirety.

73  Jim
W5JO



["my state director sent out a email on this subject it was a little vague in
some depts as to the reasons for the BW issue. He had asked about
interference to cw and rtty ops from digi stations that the guys were
complaining about. he said he had never had any problems and wanted to know
just who had.
we his latest email was a couple of days ago on the subject and guess what
. yesterday i was on 14.010 and some lid starts a pactor connect right on
top of the HZ1 I was trying to work. wiped out that for a lot of the guys..
then last night i was trying to work another dx stations on  14.002.5 and
here come N3YAH connecting to N9TSM right on a freq that is in use by many
stations.. N3YAH connects and sends a email message about chain saws and
Charter One Band needs you to update your records. What the hell is this
lids up too ? passing junk mail off the Internet. here is where the winlink
and pactor 1,11,and 111 problems lie. these guys are not passing health and
welfare but Internet junk mail most of the time. i see a need for these
modes but why do we need to go by band with ? hell they have  14.060 to
14.080 now for all these modes"]

There is nothing before the FCC at this time concerning the "issue" at hand. What are they going to respond to??



Maybe some hams just like to communicate. Sounding like "crap" is not an issue with them

Maybe some hams just like to communicate. Sounding like "crap" is not an issue with them[/quote]

Hi Pete,
 If sounding like "crap" is not an issue, with hams today, then maybe,
 (just maybe) we are on the "downhill slide" to CB after all.
 I always thought what made ham radio different from CB, was that
 hams DID care about the quality of their signal.

                                        73, K1MVP :)

It depends on how you define "crap". GFZ should define what he means by "crap". i.e. AM, SSB, CW, digital modes, etc.

Petey. Rather than argue about the definition of crap. What exactly, do you support?


-ap

Ok, I'll bite.
In the case of audio:
Audio quality that permits 100% intelligibility communications over the frequency of interest.

So you have no problem with bandwidth limitations ???

Ok--and what does that mean relavant to AM?
Are we back to "yellowfied" or "restricted" audio on AM just for
"communications purposes"?
                                        73, K1MVP :)

Well Pete that's where we differ. I don't want to define how someone may sound, how they may interpret "necessary", how I may interpret necessary, it's amateur radio for cryin out loud. Rem: experimentation? rem: inclusive of all. . . not exclusive of some if they want to use an old fart rig that uses phasing to generate SSB or a broadcast rig for AM. . . this doesn't relieve anyone of the fundamental rule of assuring your transmitter doesn't interfere with communications in process . . . same with the digital modes . . . if someone is firing up on CW DX communications they are already in violation of the regs . . . more regs won't make it better . . . even if it specifically addresses this situation.

Thanks for laying out your position tho and giving me a chance to lay out mine . . . . the differences in us make life interesting . .


-ap

Larry said



Ah  -  Where else Larry - - Ham sexy? :?  I mean there is little that hasn't been discussed openly here to this point.

After all this IS The AM Forum! :)

Exactly Gary!

First, if you were developing a plan to defend Michael Jackson would you think the front page of the LA Times would be a good scratchpad? I personally think we've telegraphed enough punches to the ARRL from this very platform. They read the forum religiously and despite repeated ill will toward our end of the hobby, they have tremendous support here.

Also, since the ARRL plans to burden all of ham radio with excessive regulation, especially in the area of bandwidth, where there has been none, it's not a matter for just AMers. Do you think it prudent to develop an "AM" plan that regardless of merit, that could easily be discredited by the simple phrase "special interest group" as has been done in the past by the ARRL.

You should really focus on the word "openly" however in what I said. The harm to any such effort to defend the hobby against what the ARRL is promising to do comes in the public discussion of the weak points of their proposal. So far they have adjusted their 3 khz segments to more favorably align their proposal with open criticism. Essentially they are plugging holes! They are not doing anything to favor "our" position but rather strengthen theirs.

There are some GREAT minds here on the AM forum! I think taking some of those minds undergound and working on a defense is the only intelligent thing to do! Having the fox in the chickenhouse was never a smart thing.

I would be happy to listen to any suggestion that you might have.

--Larry W8ER

Evening Gents,

 Any Representative of any Enity, Body, or Collective,  should have First on it's mind the Equal and Total interest of it's supporters...

 To do other wise, is Chaos...

 That which exsists as I see it...

Well telegraphing ones moves can be helpful or could do damage. But if a large group of people form an action group there would be no way to ensure that the ARRL would not find out.

Frankly I am surprised that the ARRL even listens to us( the AM Group). Over the years on both this board and the Window the ARRL has been beat to crap( proper use of the word Pete)out of them. They have been insulted and harrased on the boards.  If fact VJB did the same on QRZ. Check out the responses. No consensous there. Is publicly attacking the organization that has our BA's in their hands smart?  Was this for" us" or ones own self centered ideals.

This is all dangerous stuff.

I have many concerns about or mode and the hobby. I have more concerns about people helping us also. The last time a major issue came up was when the 1KW input rule was on the table. Some People said they we going to go to Washington and fight. When all was done we lost the 1kw input class. The people that went o DC pissed off so many people it hurt our mode more than anything.  Will this  happen again?

How do we decide who is going to do this. Do we have a say or is this just going to be some hidden group acting in our best interest? You know the way the ARRL does business. I would not feel comfortable not knowing who was helping "our"  hobby.

Art is right, we need numbers and frankly I don't see that happening. The other modes are really not effected by this proposal . In fact the proposal is for the digital and ssb  people - - - you know the mainstream ham radio operators.  We ARE a specilized group. I would dare say there are less than 5,000 AMers in the country. That is less than .01% of the total ham community. No power there!

I have a question that I really have know clue too .

How did the ARRL become our policy making group? I always thought the FCC did that.

I say enough with the small talk and go for the meat of the problem

 We should start with the ARRL and find as many hams in this country that have issue with the ARRL and file a petition stating that the ARRL does not represent our interests as hams and we do not regonize their authority  ( if you will ).  Oh 300,00 signatures would certainly wake up the ARRL as well as the FCC. But we know this won't happen.

Could we get oh let's say a thousand people gathered on the ARRL's door step. You know a good old fashion Rally.

I have no answers Larry but I do have concerns. I love my hobby and this mode . I would hate to sit back and watch it go down the tubes.

If there is going to be a group of people helping " our" hobby then I want to be fully involved and informed of all ideas, actions etc. I want a say in what they are going to do for our hobby. I am sure there are quite a few that feel the same way.

Pete your idea of audio restiction will kill AM as many know it. Is that what you want? If I have to listen to AM in 3kc I would rather go to SSB - - it would sound better.

There is little we can do until the ARRL files a formal petition. Then we will have the facts to act on.  Like you said .

Oh !

Yes, If we are talking about a focused attempt  then I am on board.

The frist order of business should be -  what is our agenda.

I can set up a users only room that will require logging in for discussion  and polling.

What ever we need

You just nailed the big issue Gary.
 ARRL repeater coordination  has been accepted by FCC as their own. Look at some of the Rileygrams and see how this has been used. Almost everyone asked says that this is working F.B. Looks like the folks in Newington would like to grab more clout by becoming the H.F. coordinators also.
Any adoptation of the proposed rules under discussion would generate plenty of extra work for those who's job is enforcement.
The sales pitch has always been that amateur radio would be self policing. So  if ARRL wants to "help" FCC with more rules then they must also have a plan to aid enforcement.  Maybe they plan to highlight the merits of their official observer program.

Interesting Dave,

That could very well be the area of focus.  If they can't make policy then the rest just wouldn't matter.

I never said anything about audio restiction. Given the present bandwidth proposal, and the 9kHz of AM bandwidth will still make you sound "good". Of course "good" can be defined differently by each one of us. There is probably a subset of AM operators who enjoy "AM" for what it is, i.e. a different mode, a change of pace from SSB or CW, and don't have a high desire for "wide-body" AM.

why should any mode be an exception? exceptions are relatively easy to eliminate.

if it is what you are interested in at the time you should be able to do it. same with digital . . . it ain't gonna be sveldt and narrow initially . .  its gonna be wide and full of overhead . . . snmp, digitized voice QAM, DPQSK, M16QAM, or M64QAM, within TDMA or even CDMA, synch, repeater capability-handoff.handover, FEC . . .  it took years to narrow to 6 voice slots in one 25KHz channel with huge R&D . . amateurs are going to do this in the minimum bandwidth right out of the chute?

defining modes and attendent bandwidth serves to endorse a specific product or create a regulatory enforcement "opportunity".

Afternoon Art,

 And, Conjugate Focus on Equipment, Further Reduction of Skills, creating an even less quality Operator.

It's a process Arty.

Pete:

Where in this graphical does it say 9 Kcy?

160 Meters
 Proposed Bandwidth
 
1.800-2.000 MHz
 up to 3 kHz

 
80/75 Meters
 
3.500-3.580 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
3.580-3.620 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
3.620-3.635 MHz
 up to 3 kHz with automatic control
 
3.635-4.000 MHz
 up to 3 kHz

 
40 Meters
 
7.000-7.035 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
7.035-7.100 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
7.100-7.105 MHz
 up to 3 kHz with automatic control
 
7.105-7.300 MHz
 up to 3 kHz

 
30 Meters
 
10.100-10.120 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
10.120-10.135 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
10.135-10.140 MHz
 up to 3 kHz
 
10.140-10.150 MHz
 up to 3 kHz with automatic control

 
20 Meters
 
14.000-14.065 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
14.065-14.100 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
14.100-14.112 MHz
 up to 3 kHz with automatic control
 
14.112-14.350 MHz
 up to 3 kHz

 
17 Meters
 
18.068-18.100 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
18.100-18.110 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
18.110-18.168 MHz
 up to 3 kHz

 
15 Meters
 
21.000-21.080 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
21.080-21.150 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
21.150-21.160 MHz
 up to 3 kHz with automatic control
 
21.160-21.450 MHz
 up to 3 kHz

 
12 Meters
 
24.890-24.920 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
24.920-24.930 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
24.930-24.990 MHz
 up to 3 kHz

 
10 Meters
 
28.000-28.050 MHz
 up to 200 Hz
 
28.050-28.120 MHz
 up to 500 Hz
 
28.120-28.189 MHz
 up to 3 kHz with automatic control
 
28.189-29.000 MHz
 up to 3 kHz
 
29.000-29.700 MHz
 up to 16 kHz
 

Howdy Jack . . . I understand the process and object . . . first we get the include everybody effort and then we get the exclusivity set up going so the new folks and others who like modes like, say AM frinstance, get squished into a ghetto while undiscovered modes and one with waning popularity are accorded exclusive band space . . . das es ferda shiza . . (Herb will have to correct my spelling . . . )

FB Arty,  :D Excellent.. :D

I actually agree with you Jim on this one. The PDF chart with the proposal does say at the bottom to "see text for information about AM and ISM emissions" but the table, the one you quoted, does not.

I sent Dave Sumner a note the other day pointing this out along with some other info. Below are the e-mails, edited to just include this item of discussion.

Pete things would be a lot more palatable if, instead breaking out phone portions, which has implications of regulation by bandwidth/by mode, you simply state Phone 9 Khz or less.  Making AM an exemption is not acceptable.  In fact 9 Khz is too little for some here.  Why not make it 9 Khz and exempting greater bandwidths for DBS w/carrier if there is no interference or other stations on the band as the exemption and lump the modes by bandwidth wihch is what the goofs are proposing anyway?  Better yet make it up to 12 Khz.  

These objections are what make AM people very reactive, including me.  I have already gone on record with my Director against the entire thing because of this issue.  No one understands why the phone mode must be limited to 3 Khz with execptions since this looks like either an attempt to get rid of AM or put it in the out bin with an exception.  This part is not regulation by bandwidth as the proposal states.

One other thing Pete, Even with the added text in your mail to Dave, this eliminates the ESSB group by mode, the very thing they are trying to change, regulation by mode.  Would the ESSB boys fit in the ISB + carrier group or the AM group DSB + carrier.  Where would they fit?  Too many cross purposes.

Good Job Pete,

 Thanks for sharing that, and it's good to see David is Aware, Now, at this point Actions will speak Volumes to the masses...

Pete

You wrote this




Well that can be done around 3k. That is restricted audio for AM Pete at least in my book.

Bandwidth figures could deliberately be left vague, defined by the non-specified nominal bandwidths of incumbent modes.  Additional modes, not specifically mentioned in the regulations could be permitted on the condition that their nominal bandwidths would not exceed those of certain specified modes, without naming actual figures for bandwidth.  For example the "3 kHz" digital signals could be defined as any other unspecified mode of emission whose bandwidths does not exceed that of a SSB voice signal transmitting within the limits of good engineering practice."  Narrower bandwidths could use the nominal bandwidth of CW as a standard.  Wider bandwidths could use AM or FM as the standard.  

I'd have to find my copy of Part 97, or better still, download a fresh copy off the net to determine the exact section, but as I recall this concept is already in use in several sections of the present regulations, as a result of the Part 97 rewrite of a decade or two ago.  The FCC said at the time that they were deliberately leaving bandwidth figures vaguely defined to allow amateurs the maximum flexibility for experimentation and development of the radio art.

Guys,

I can't help but be amazed at the attempts to put bandaids on a flawed concept! The ARRL is pushing this one, which is nothing more than an amplification of the work began by W6FDR and the other lunatic Lonicke  to limit bandwidth. The FCC rejected all of that quite soundly if you guys remember.

This is still, first and foremost, a proposal that will limit bandwidth. Each one of you guys in this thread are all discussing bandwith this and bandwidth that. It's a bandwidth proposal! This ARRL proposal introduces bandwidth as a way of allocating sub bands and thus creates limits where there has been none.

It matters not if 3 khz sounds OK or 9 khz sound OK. You guys seem to be accepting of this! It like lowering the speed limit on all US highways to 45 mph and no one is saying whoa! We don't want that! All of you are looking to justify why we should accept 9 khz or 3 khz.

You are focusing on the wrong part. WHY GO ALONG WITH THIS IDIOTIC PROPOSAL THAT WILL TAKE PRIVELEGES, THAT YOU HAVE NOW, AWAY?

--Larry W8ER

Pete, well done on the 160M info upload . . .

Now if we could just get em to fix the rest of the ARRL . . .'look at me, I'm important' drivel and really represent the amateur populace they helped generate . . . it would be wonderful.
i have heard of *many* grass roots groups spanning diverse disciplines that intend to submit opposing proposals. They may not have the sophistication of the lawyerd up proposals from the ARRL but will surely serve to dilute the idea that the ARRL is representing a large cross section of the total amateur radio population. There are also very enthusiastic internet board groups who are organizing with the sole intent of shoving the ARRLs face in their own paper at comment time.
And when that occurs, and the ARRL is standing there with toilet paper on their heel and a shot down proposal in their hands. Who will represent amateur radio operators? Where will the ARRLs power base be? What started out to be 'look at me, I'm important' will have become the beginning of the end of the ARRL.
Most organizations do not die . . . they commit suicide. They do this by believing their own org charts and neglecting to turn those org charts upside down to understand the true nature of service to a constituency.

-ap

Why do you think we are picking at it Larry?  I am against it altogether in it's present form and will be against it unless they do it right.  No limits on bandwidth.  As a member of ARRL my Division Director better answer, he has quite a well versed assistant in the wings waiting for him to either not run or stumble.  I am waiting for him to stumble.

Jim W5JO wrote:

Jim, if you reread this topic it is full of statements questioning why does it say this and where does it say that. There should be a resounding .. HELL NO .. at this point, not picking! Even Pete is accepting of audio that is effective at communicating. Pete, I'm a very direct sort of guy and please don't be pissed at me for saying this, but there are guys on this board, in this part of the hobby, that would eat shi* if the ARRL put it's stamp on it.

Look at the beautiful bandscans that Steve did a couple of weeks ago and then tell me if you think that the ARRL should further this proposal in any form!

This ARRL proposal doesn't require further examination for everyone to understand what is under the covers and it should be soundly rejected.

--Larry W8ER

Unfortunately for us Larry, we can't have a lot of respect.  I will give the ARRL this, now with the internet and email, they are a little responsive to you and me.  Previously it was quite a chore to type a letter with carbon paper and mail it to your director.  Now some of them actually read these dialogues.  That is a step in the right direction.  
We would have a great impact if we all were members of ARRL, but for one reason or another, we aren't.  The FCC respects the ARRL for one reason only.  It represents the greatest collection of amateurs in the US and for the last 30 years they don't want to be bothered by our hobby.

When the oldest organization that represents the largest group of the hobby files something, the FCC listens.  Now in the past three years, I have seen guys like you have an actual impact on the ARRL and the FCC.  The only way to convince them is to keep pointing out flaws in proposals as we are doing.  Those of us who are members should take those flaws and communicate them to their directors, who should respond to the members concerns.  If they don't they the members should vote them out and put directors in place that will listen.  Enough flaws and we have a chance to get them to dicard the proposal or, at least, rethink it.

These directors have been involved in digital many years and want to foster it's growth, despite the impact on other modes.  Some or them are arrogant and impossible to communicate thoughts about an interest they don't share.  I think we need to continue to pick and fight then file comments if the proposal is filed and becomes an RM

Jim,

The ARRL has a duty to be responsive to it's members, not just a little, or a bit better lately, but full blown responsive to it's members.

Last year I was a member and spend hours communicating with Jim Weaver, my Division Director. Also Mike W8MW spent hours communicating with Jim as did others regarding this proposal. We tried to work within the system. Unfortunately, Jim announced that he was going to support the proposal because out of the 8 or so responses only 4 were negative in some way. Considering that I was in direct email contact with 5 people that claim to have sent communication to Jim asking that he not support the proposal, I had a bit of a hard time with Jims decision. That is not representative in any way. Vote him out .. why? You see what is going on with the proposal and voting him out will have no effect, afterwards.

What was happening, that I could directly control, is that with my member ship, I was supporting an organization that working against me. I hardly find that palatable!

To the case in point, this proposal. If the membership of the ARRL does not stand up and roar about the restrictions that the ARRL is about to propose, your organization will do it's best to see that ALL amateurs lose priveleges. If what the ARRL did was to only affect it's members, then I would say cool! Go ahead and you'd be able to tell the ARRL members from the non-members by their "communication" sounding signals. But this affects ALL radio amateurs, which the ARRL represents (or doesn't represent as the case may be) less than 25% of. This is patently unfair and unjust!

Imagine for a moment if State Farm were proposing speed limits of 45 mph on all highways. Let's say the guys in this forum were all sitting around discussing how it will save gas and be safer and generally accepting what State Farm was proposing because it was better. Let's say that even some of State Farms members were opposed to the speed limits but were being ignored, for the betterment of the driving public. After all what State Farm was proposing was all goodness, for our own goods, and they know what is coming down the road and this was the best for us!

I use good judgement in my operating practices. Why should I be subjected to this garbage just because the ARRL is the only one with vision and insight and says that I should.  Maybe the FCC needs to understand the relationship between the ARRL and the hobby a little better. That would be secondary to the ARRL admitting it's relationship to the hobby truthfully and stop pretending that it represents us, the majority of hams!

--Larry W8ER

Agree with all Larry.  I sure hope my Director doesn't do what yours did.  He may get a recall from me, probably won't do much good, but I am going to give him hell.

The representative part for all amateurs is what galls me.

It can be done at 1.8 and 2.4 kHz too if you really like the carbon or telephone handset type audio. How you perceive "restricted audio" on the air, I believe, is a matter of personal taste. We been sensitized much too long that “wide is good”, “wide is natural”, “wide is the only way to go”; no “scratchy Apache” audio please. When I work someone on AM, it’s for the contact, the discussion, the friendship, the fun. They don’t need to rattle my windows with their audio or rumble the upstairs floor.  And, since the majority of the time I use headphones, whether you’re 3, 4, 5, or 6 kHz, really makes no difference to me. Most of the time, I keep the receiver in the 6kHz bandwidth position.

It might be time to review the QEX article, Jan/Feb 2003 Digital Standards/Amateur Radio Applications. Page 54 starts the "adaptation for amateur radio use". Ten-Tec ran several on the air successful  tests last year using this method.
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/x0301049.pdf

I wasn't very happy when they dropped the highway speed down to 55 to "save gas" years ago. Maybe we saved gas; maybe we didn't; I don't know but I tried to stay within the rule as best I could.

I don't know... I thought the premise was to use all emissions to their full advantage under guideline salted with experimentation to further the Art and to enhance the service and provide a pool of qualified operators..[Old School]..

Subjectively, to impress 1.8 or 2.4Khc signal on a Carrier wave emission is not using the mode to it's full advantage, and is wasting energy generated. if the thought is to operate optimally, then the enhancement of SSB is what was concieved to provide the service an emission characteristic of what you describe Pete...

In todays Reality, if the concerns are interested in Optimal operations, actions and activities being what they are, and seeing first hand what had transpired from the ESSB crowd, the next Logical Step

Pete, this is not about staying within the rules at all! Your good buddies up in Newington, you know David et all, are trying to get the FCC to make new rules! What I am saying is the ARRL is asking the FCC to lower the speed limit! WHY?



Well I guess that says it all! There is a dramatic difference between 3 khz and 6 khz in the quality of voice transmissions. There's two possibilities, either your headphones are busted or .... If I couldn't tell the difference between going 30 mph and 60 mph, I supposed I wouldn't care if I was riding in a car or on a horse either!

--Larry

well then Pete, If you cant tell the difference thats fine . . . use your headphones . . operate as you wish . . . just don't tell me that I must operate as you wish.

-ap

With Ample Room, and if people would adhere to the Gentlemens agreements and Mind their buisness, Width wouldn't be Such a problem...

Misunderstanding Why Width is such a problem Here...

I wasn't happy at all with incentive licensing, an ARRL proposal.  I wasn't happy with the 1500 PEP limit which was not opposed by the ARRL and am really unhappy with the bandwidth proposal.

I, like Larry and others, don't understand why Division Directors feel they are so much more knowledgeable about what's to come for Amateur Radio than others, the majority of which are non members.  Explain to me how an organization that has approximately 25% of the ham population as members can take things upon itself to propose such a radical change for all in the name of ham radio.

These are some of the reasons that our friend up in the Northeast decided to fight almost all of what the FCC puts forth in the name of the ARRL.  I believe he is overboard, but at least his transmissions follow the gentleman's agreement of AM on frequencies that are popular with AM operators, unlike the ARRL.

Instead of bandwidth proposals, the ARRL should concentrate on recruiting more than 50% of hams as members and at that point institute a system of feedback to the Directors.  Make the Directors focus on what the ham community in it's entirety wants, then they could claim to represent Amateur Radio.  Get them with it Pete.

Jack,
 Agree with you 100%--"micro-management" of bandwidth IMO is
 NOT the solution.--common sense would go a long way on this issue.
                                       73, K1MVP, :)

Over the years I could never figure out why some guys run
very restricted audio on AM and say they only care
about running "communications" audio -  "as long as
you can hear me, is all that counts".  

I wonder if it's because they've never been exposed to a
truly hi-fi AM receiver system with the wonderful AM
audio on the band and heard their own restricted audio
played back on it in comparison, are too lazy to modify
their rigs, or maybe just  don't know how to do it - as
an excuse to remain the same.

Personally, I would get tired of getting Yallowy audio
reports and do something about it - or not get on the
air much, which is the usual solution.I notice guys with
clean, hi-fi audio are much more active and seem to
have more fun. [Do blondes and hi-fi AMer's really have
more fun?]  :D

Even an AM rig running +- 4.5kc  brickwall flat audio
sounds great compared to the stock and distorted  
boat anchors and riceboxes you hear. So little
effort is needed to sound good.. [sigh]

My comments are not meant to criticize anyone, just
wonder why some can be satisified sounding like that
on a mode that showcases its audio as a benefit. SSB
sounds better in the enhanced mode and is narrower
overall than a stock AM boatanchor, so why bother?

[Anyone looking for ways or a plan to modify their stock
rig can ask me on the air for help  - anytime]

BTW, I agree that we need a Canadian style regulations
solution here in the USA. Simple with gentlemen's agreements
where to operate - just like 160M. I hope the FCC gives the ARRL's
proposal a thumbs down just like the last one.  Bad precedent
if it flies...

T

How you interpret the rules, and if you choose to follow them, is your business, not mine.

Probably no reason why QRP'ers couldn't do that if they felt strongly about it.
At this time, I don't see anybody forcing or jamming anything.

WA2CWA wrote:


Ok Pete,
 Then this just "confirms" that its more than "just making room" for
 the new digital modes, as some of us suspected all along.
 It`s also tied to the "new restructuring" proposals, of "automatic
 upgrade" for NCT`s, which many of us thought was also rediculous.

                                          73, K1MVP  :)

Yep, from their point of view, it's about getting as many hams
into the hobby and knowing that a certain percentage will
also become league members. [more dues].  "Promoted" hams
means more radio sale upgrades and more QST advertising,
book sales, etc.

It's really no different than any American corporation.  
[and the ARRL is a corporation run just like a for-profit
one despite their 501C  non profit status]

If I were an influential board member or employee of
the ARRL, I might want to make sure that everything
is done to insure its survival, produce better raises
and salaries and make sure it is there to pay my pension
when I retire... [league employees]

So there are probably many decisions made that are
quasi-money oriented. Just because after 80 years they
are still struggling and worth only $4 million or so doesn't
make them TOTALLY incompetent.  :roll:   [maybe they're
worth a little more since the market rallied last year, dunno]

What  bugs me about this bandwidth proposal is that it makes
a mindset and focus on AM, being the widest and getting an
"exception". Later on it is so easy to amend that exception for
elimination totally. Right now it would be very difficult.

T

Tom,

It's good hearing you weigh in on this. I wish some of the other tall ships would speak their minds.

--Larry ER

"How you interpret the rules, and if you choose to follow them, is your business, not mine."

. .  .and when the ARRL realizes they have just as much validity in my business, or avocation, as you do, we will have accomplished something.  However, via the promulgation of regulation the ARRL seeks to inflict their "operating parameters" on me. That is no more acceptable from the ARRL than it is from you, and in my opinion, contrary to the good of the service.

-ap

Precisely.

Now look again at what  Johnny Johnston wrote in his column in June WorldRadio:

I saw that too, on page 22 of World Radio yesterday, Don.

Didn't know it was Johnny Johnson who answered the
question.

I found it insulting to even print such a question and give
credibility to it. What if someone axed about how to rid CW
from the bands or ssb?

To AM diehards, it's almost like a racial slur.  He picked that
question to field and it appears hasn't changed his bias from
the past.  This is what I mean by it taking little to eliminate
the AM exception later. All you need is a following of AM bashers
like him to get it started.

T

I remember sometime back reading a comment filed on another proposal written by Don, K4KYV.  It was well written and concise.  Forgive me Don but I suggest you either write it or be deeply involved.  I would probably sign my name to it after reading if you do.

That is an incredibly excellent idea Art!!! Seriously! I would think, given the FCC's reduced resources they would very much be into this approach!

"... automated, unattended packet (and other digital) "mailboxes"...will "step on" ongoing communications. Robotic stations do not belong on crowded HF bands...period! (Just think of K1MAN in a digital mode!) "

Well said, Phil.

Art,

I think that approach could be sold to a large majority of  the ham population  too.

Good Day Everyone,

 Through all this, and I have operated VHF Packet as a matter of Fact KA3UWW and I set up a 4 port Packet Node some years ago when the Packet bug was all the rage we had it set up here at my place, was operating C-Node VIA an Old Commodore 128, had an old regency mobile unit doing the transmissions and did quite well..

 But it was SLOW..compared to the twisted pair..sure it was fun But, when you consider the Baud rates man it was ancient...anyways Not To Put a Black mark on the operation or put it down in any way, and it is enjoyable facet of the service..

 But Still, what is so Dramatically coming down the pike that entails a Call for RMs with the FCC...

 That's all I want to know, Then when that's satisified, we the members of the Service will fit it in, Common Operational Practicallity will dictate Placement... Cheese and Crackers ARRL Wake Up....