The AM Forum

ARRL leader widely questioned about AM.

Harold Kramer, the "Chief Operating Officer" of the ARRL, a small non-profit publishing company representing radio hobbyists, has said in the group's monthly magazine that he continues to get questioned about their group's stance on AM. He referred readers to a February 2006 FAQ, and did not provide any new material now that a petition from their group seems to have been discredited in a public FCC proceeding.

Kramer failed to address the Comments filed Opposed to his group's petition RM-11306 which among other things sought to encourage the use of ham radio for email from the internet, and tried to impose the first-ever bandwidth restrictions on AM by reducing AM activity to a "special exception." He also failed to address other responses in the FCC proceeding that overwhelmingly were against their petition for a variety of additional reasons. The ratio among about 1000 responses ran 8:1 negative regarding the scheme from Newington.

The ARRL has also failed to acknowledge in any public forum a rival petition, RM-11305, that came from a small group of concerned, active amateurs (including me).  The Reply Comments to RM-11305 incorporate many of the concerns expressed against both Petitions as part of a response for further consideration by the FCC. By contrast, the League failed to accomodate the concerns against its proposal when the group's lawyer filed Reply Comments, and continued defending its Petition as written.

Kramer's latest defense of the scheme is on Pg. 13 of a column in the Sept. 2006 issue of QST.

*(emphasis added by me)

And I still contend that every time someone refers to AM as a 'Legacy Mode', 'specialty of AM', or any other warm-fuzzy attempt to place AM above or otherwise outside of the standard, accepted modes, we invite this kind of treatment.

Just say NO. Resist the urge to help others pigeon-hole AM as anything beyond an accepted, everyday mode of communication. Less is more, in this case.

Exactly, Todd, the mode should not be treated as a footnote that's otherwise not compliant with the rules they propose. Too easy to legislate it away.

If anything the group in Newington should have proposed a "special exception" for digital communications, that could be revoked if those running it fail to observe voluntary mitigation of interference.

That is one of the chief concerns among the many comments to the FCC against mixing automated digital communications and radio monitored by ear.

I'd dare to day that there are more AM users on today than wideband digital users.  At lease AM use is 100% for Amateurs.   

Good point Charlie, but the ARRL's obsession with wideband digital is separate from the fact we are not among the favored children.

Fast-scan TV, RTTY, moonbounce, space shuttle all get disproportionate play in Newington's activities,  comparing the number of participants to those taking part in all categories of AM (grouped by gear like military, broadcast, vintage ham, maritime,  etc.)

What's it mean?  Proof Newington does NOT represent us at a level a reasonable person could consider fair.
Then people like Pete wonder why some of us are critical of the place.
I don't understand that kind of response at all, but ignore much of it as rabid loyalism to an organization in steep decline.