The AM Forum

Have you read this new proposal from the ARRL on Bandwidth?

Tentative proposals by frequency band:

160M - Entire band = up to 3 kHz
75/80M - Segments of up to 200 Hz, 500 Hz, and 3 kHz. A sub-segment
of 3 kHz would be open to automatic control. AM and Independent SB
(ISB) would be authorized by special exemption.
40M - Same as for 80/75.




This proposal is a threat to the hobby as many know it. It will effect our mode the most at first and slowy eat away at the entire hobby in general with these principles.

I am concerned when others( the ARRL) are making decisions for us without our input. Not knowing if it is for the Ham community or their own self centered interests( politics).

I really feel they have us jumping thru hoops every time they decide to regulate the HF bands. We react everytime with little or less than the needed response.

Bottom line  the ARRL does not speak for many yet somehow the FCC has decided that they do - - - that needs to be rectified. If not this little game will continue on time after time after time.

The problem isn't the proposals the problem is the ARRL's stance with the FCC.

The ARRL has carte blanc on our hobby right now and I want to know how this happened.

Now the big question does anyone really want to solve the problem or just react to each time they propose. That gets old and I believe every time it comes up less and less get involved because we know the outcome. We are too small and have limited numbers and most will not voice their opinions because of the lack of response to our lobbying in the past.

We need to go after the ARRL - - Maybe a petition to the FCC stating that the ARRL does not speak for our needs just there own Political and finacial needs. If we could get a quarter of a million signatures that would carry some weight with the FCC and it might wake ou the ARRL. This would have to include all modes to be effective.

If we use the same approach over and over we will get pretty much the same results.  

There  are many in the background organiziing and planning to fight against any such proposals success.

This will take numbers on our part to ensure the most  for the buck.

Having small numbers in the AM mode we need every person to participate.

So let me ask would you support an action to counter the ARRLs proposal.

I have started a poll on this.

Feel free to give comments but you can also just give your answer to the poll.

I think this is serious stuff and I am interested in just how serious we all are about this.

It's time to stand up and be counted.

I'm opposed to the ARRL bandwidth proposal, but there needs to be some clarification.

Under the bandwidth proposal, AM is given an exemption and "allowed" signal bandwidth up to 9 khz on all bands on which phone is permitted.  Signals wider than 9 khz are restricted to 10 meters and up.  Here's the way the exewmption is described in Minute 476 of ARRL Executive Committee meeting on April 9 of this year.  Full text of the minutes are at the URL that follows the quote.



http://www.arrl.org/announce/ec_minutes_476.html

From what I've read, the ARRL plans to submit the bandwidth proposal to the FCC later this year.  If the proposal is then accepted as a petition for rulemaking, the FCC will provide for a period of comment by all interested parties.  Comments can be filed on the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System.  

Thanks for providing this poll Gary and for providing a forum for discussion of the bandwidth proposal.

When they outlaw AM only Gangstas will operate AM !

I cannot stand it anymore!
In the past, I have kinda let this kind of stuff just run itself out or just let other people fight the fight. Not any more.
 I am sick and tired of the ARRL just proposing rule changes to suit special interests inside the league. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why so many people are so interested in imposing more regulations upon themselves. Incentive licensing isn't bad enough, but now the league is proposing that we regulate the amateur bands by bandwidth as well? When does it stop! With a trend of more countries de-regulating amateur radio, we go and ask for more!

 ENOUGH!

I'm opposed to people throwing numbers around without knowing what they are doing.

We need to come up with some positive alternatives.  Just saying we are opposed to the ARRL plan isn't enough.  And basing our stand solely on the way it affects AM won't work, because we are such a minority interest.  We must help convince the greater ham community and the FCC that bandwidth regulation is neicher in the best interests of the FCC nor the amateurs.

From some of the comments I have read on QRZ.com, there is considerable opposition to the plan because they fear it would allow unattended ditigal operations to pop up anywhere in the band, regardless of whether or not the frequency is in use.  Cw, rtty and SSB ops have all expressed this concern.  Many see some forms of the new digital communication under discussion lately as little more than a free wireless e-mail service for licensed hams.

I think the best solution is to eliminate subbands altogether.  Maybe some modes such as weak-signal cw operation would benefit from continued "protection", but the complicated subband matrix proposed by the League demonstrates that desirable as that might be for some specialised modes, the disadvantages of attempting to keep the subband structure far outweigh the advantages.

I seem to hear opposition to subband deregulation from two groups:  the CW community, fearing that SSB will take over the cw frequencies at the bottom ends of the bands out of arrogance because they would have the "legal right to be there."  This fear is somewhat valid, simply based our own experience with certain slopbucketeers.

The other group opposing subband deregulation appears to be an element within the amateur community with the attitude that there is something sacred about the subband structure, since we have "always" had band segmentation.  This seems to be the prevailing attitude I have picked up from the League.

I have even heard attempts to mingle the subband issue with political issues in general,  to the effect that it is "un-American" to advocate the elimination of subbands simply because Canada and certain European countries have in fact eliminated theirs,  and "Amurrka" needs to stand distinctly apart from the rest of the world.

If anything good could come out of this it would be that we finally have a real window of opportunity to get rid of subbands.

The ARRL by it's sheer numbers does not represent amateur radio. All of the BS aside, "well it the only thing we have and it's the oldest ham organization and all that crap" their membership represents approximately 25% of the amateur radio operators. This is not a consensus and does not give them the right to claim so.

Despite what good the ARRL has done, it has also done BAD things. Do we need to run a list?

THIS PROPOSAL IS A BAD THING INDEED! and not just for AMers.

There is no point in discussing anything with these people. They don't even honor their pledge to represent their membership. Dealing with them at all is a waste of time.

Theirs is a business, first and foremost. JJ pointed out that they would be remiss if they did not look out for their future accordingly and that simply does NOT mean that they are looking out for ham radio!!! Tom hit the nail right on the old bean!

Let's be clear:

1) The Bandwidth Proposal sucks and as such deserves no further attention .. other than to make it clear that it needs to go away! There no fixing Humpty Dumpty!

2) Bandwidth definition is not wanted here. If an experimental mode desires on the air testing, it should be done at VHF and UHF frequencies where they can use as much as needed and is practical.

FM as a mode is good. It was developed on VHF, is preferred on VHF and UHF and has never been allowed below 29 mhz. Why should digital modes be excepted?

3) Digital modes. OK I agree that DRM is wonderful for some purposes. It sounds great but is a whole bunch wide and cannot tolerate interference, while creating a shit load of QRM it's own. Not something ready for ham radio yet!

Internet connections via the ham bands for email. This is a joke! Remember the autopatch where some cheap SOB who was too darn cheap to pay for IMTS so he used the repeater autopatch to kiss the wife hello! Where is that guy now that cell phones are a dime at any WalMart? There's a lot of spectrum and machines left behind in that vast wasteland called 2 meters! Well internet email is the same thing. Some SOB's think that if they put it on the air, they won't have to pay $9.95 a month for an ISP. Well guys .. what about the packet network, if you have to get email via ham radio? It's a mature data network that traverses the continent. Play with email there if you have to but leave HF alone and take those automatic robots and stuff em!

4) I am a more knowledgeable ham that one who has been at it for six months. Ego aside, I have a right to more priveleges than he does. Until a better method comes along, license class is an indicator. Make it so!

5) We need to encourage new participation and this is difficult these days of the internet! Give them a taste, for a short period, and if they like it .. join us. If not go away.

This hobby must stand on it's own. You can't use protracted means to prop it up forever! Sure the day may come when it dies in the natural progression of things but who are we to grab every kid and jam a microphone down his throat! That's not who is going to make the hobby flourish! A horse has been replaced as a main mode of transportation by the automobile and even that may eventually be replaced by an advanced form. I hope the hobby is around as long as I can enjoy it but the damn ARRL and their crap isn't the answer!

I'd love to know what EVERYBODY thinks about this stuff! Where do we stand as a group? and Don you are right! Positive things need to be done and I rather strongly suspect ARE being done. P&M won't work! We need to get down to defining the problems and answers. There's a lot of talent here ..let's hear it!

--Larry W8ER

Pete WA2CWA quoted ARRL sources as:


and yet you fail to see that they are, despite their protests, recommending bandwidth limits. What part of "to the 3 kHz bandwidth limit--with restrictions of 9 kHz and 6 kHz respectively" is too tough for you to comprehend?

Somebody must have hit you on the head with a mallet and you are having trouble recovering Pete!  :shock:

This issue is well understood and it's all about bandwidth limits and the assignment of subbands by bandwidth. It is inappropriate. It introduces regulation where there was none. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND CANNOT BE PATCHED TO WORK!

Just for the sake of accuracy:

* Regulation by bandwidth is not new. Section 97.307(a) already limits
bandwidth, and FCC Part 2 rules define the necessary bandwidth of a
commercial-quality SSB signal at 2.7 kHz. Hams are limited to 2.8 kHz
bandwidth on 60 meters. So, the proposed 3 kHz bandwidth limit--with an
exception for double-sideband AM phone--is actually less restrictive
than current rules!


FCC Part 2 is irrelevant and not applicable to amateur radio. Can you say red herring. Inaccuracy #1.

The proposal is more restrictive than the current rules. This same person said several bullets up that a digital signal could be 10-20 kHz wide under the current rules. Same goes for an AM signal (remember the good engineering practice phrase).  Inaccuracy #2.


* The communication world is "going digital," and this trend
already is carrying over into Amateur Radio, which must be ready to
deal with analog vs digital voice in the present phone bands. The
tradeoff is between future flexibility through voluntary band planning
on the one hand, and the potential for competition for spectrum among
incompatible modes on the other, if things stay as they are.

The communication world has already gone digital. Inaccuracy #3.


There is no such thing as incompatible modes. As long as mode A is not interfering with mode B, they are compatible. Another red herring. Inaccuracy #4.


* The ARRL Board has not decided what changes in the rules, if any, to
propose to the FCC. The Board is looking at a committee recommendation and is open to comments and suggestions

As posted by numerous other here, their concerns were and have been ignored. They are clearly not open to outside input. Inaccuracy #5.

Partially true. The FCC does protect CW - by giving it exclusive sub-bands. Inaccuracy #6.

With all due respect to the Hudson Divison Director,
the argument about bandwidth limits already being
here on 60 meters is a bit of a red herring.  60 meters
is unique in that we share five specific frequencies
as secondary users and given who we share those
frequencies with, we're not only limited to bandwidth,
but to mode.  The only other HF band on which mode
is imposed across the board is 30 meters.  So yes,
bandwidth limits are here, but only insofar as a
specific set of HF frequencies on one band are concerned.  

As far as a vested interest in the outcome of the proposal?  
I don't know whether the ARRL has any vested
interest in the outcome of this specific proposal,
but I think it's fair to say that it has a vested interest
in trying to find more members and the following
may thus apply:

http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-2005/january/15-AandF.doc
Excerpt from the ARRL Budget & Finance Committee
Report, 2005 Annual Meeting.

Thanks Pete

I quoted what Don posted I guess you missed that.

Now now, just because one is a shill for the ARRL and prone to error should not invalidate opinons . . that's the PC way . .

What is clear and obvious is there are "special interests" being catered to by an organization that is supposed to represent its members. Note that I did not include the greater amateur populace . . . just their own members. I as a member feel the ARRL is not representing me or amateur radio operators in general properly.

This bandwidth-mode-proposal is a travesty and should be either quashed or defeated soundly.

The way to do this is to discuss it beyond the AM forum choir. It will be important to present this on QRZ, QTH, alt.am.rad, etc and generate as much  informed discussion as possible. Then, if sensible proposals are presented there will be an informed and ready support structure.

-ap

As long as we're talking "inaccuracy" The communication world has definately NOT gone digital and is a very long way from doing so.

How many public service (police, fire, etc..) stations do you think are using digital voice communications today? How about broadcasters?...


Nothing like shoving technology down someone's throat....

"How many public service (police, fire, etc..) stations do you think are using digital voice communications today? How about broadcasters?... "

Lots . .  I can think of a dozen states, there are many times that number of counties and sub agencies, the US Navy, "other" US agencies, the Panama Canal, that are using digital voice communications . . .

They are all using infrastructures that are more elaborate than most amateurs would be comfortable building though.

Broadcasting is just on the verge of becoming digital . . .

However, your point is well taken in that amateur radio digital voice is only facilitated by one after market accessory that I know of.

Ten years from now . . . we might have to change the rules again. Until then, why encumber the rest of the amateur operators with useless regulation?

Actually Larry, I don't have a problem with bandwidth limits. Never have. And no, no one hit me on the head with a mallet. But, I'm  also looking at the proposal as a "proposal' for the future, 5, 10, or 20 years down the road.[/color]



OK! Let's nor worry about amateur radio's future but just keep "me" happy today.[/color]

To continue Glenn.....

Most police and fire departments equip their field vehicles with laptops, digital feed video dashcams, GPS, and many other devices all radio linked to dispatch by digital means. Yes.... they still use RADIO.

The FAA labs here in Oberlin, Ohio are developing a digital voice system for the airlines in an effort to secure communications in the airline industry.

The point that amateur radio is behind the curve is accurate.

It was inaccurate when Don quoted the original poster on the other thread. He, "the original poster" didn't have all the facts and information when he sent the e-mail Don quoted from.
See http://amfone.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4638  My comments, 3rd post down from the start of the thread.

How is tying the hands of present day amateurs with useless restrictions beneficial to future hams ?

Ask most NASCAR guys how they fell about restrictor plate racing !!!

Who or what are these "special interests" that you refer too?? What is the motivation behind these alleged "cloak and dagger" "back door" activities that some have referred to? Lots of finger pointing but no real hard facts.

If you're Director is not doing his job, get him out of office. Isn't his term up for renewal shortly? Director and Vice Director terms are 3 years.

None around here Art. And here is the NY metro area which has probably the higest concentration of public service stations in the country.

Very few digital voice stations, probably related to the reason you mention, large infrastructure which translates to, of course, big money to switch to a digital system. What would justify the big money required to switch? A police dept using a standard analog FM system that's working well has no reason (maybe privacy?) to change to a digital voice system.
Yes, of course the US Navy, they (we) can afford it.


"Broadcasting is just on the verge of becoming digital . . . "

Yea, I keep hearing that (mostly from the mfg's of digital broadcasting equipment) but yet all the stations in this area and everywhere else remain analog.

I'm all for advancement in technology, just not into having it forced where it just isn't needed. (like in Amateur Radio)

Hi Bud;

I was referring to voice communications. I understand digital data links have been is use for a while.

I disagree, when considering what is actually in use today, Amateur Radio is right in step with everything else, not behind the curve. Amplitude Modulation is still being used by broadcasters and for aircraft communications, and that goes for FM and SSB as well. International airline flights still use SSB and yes, even the military still uses SSB voice communications. In the hobby of amateur radio, is our priority always to be the leaders in communications technology? I don't think so.

Your assumption that all this, if it happens at all, would happen soon is probably not valid. The FCC has before them the restructuring proposal first, which probably would set the stage for further movement to address the  bandwidth proposal, if they feel the influx of tons of Tech/Tech+ hams to the HF bands, warrants action on bandwidth issues.  I would be surprised, if the proposal is submitted in July, that  we see any FCC activity over the next 2 to 3 years or longer. The FCC doesn't work fast.

Let's bet a hamburger on how much traffic/data/messages are handled by digital communications systems, vice analog.

Remember, other than the local loop (and not always even in these cases), the entire phone system is digital, and has been for decades. The entire Internet is digital. All satcom is digital. The majority of cell phone comms are digital. Pagers are digital. Wireless WAN and LANs are digital. All internal comms both computer and telephone in most businesses are digital. Hell, your TV remote control is digital.

I like my hamburger with lettuce, tomatoes and a little bit of mayonnaise. If hot peppers are available, so much the better.  ;)

I do agree with you that any certain technology should not be forced on us, especially via silly rule making.

That said, amateur radio is behind the curve and pretty much has been since right after WWII. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that some rule change is somehow going to vault us to technical relevancy. It won't, it can't. Amateur radio must accept the fact, that in general, we are behind the times. This is not to say we can't make significant contributions in certain areas, even in "old technology" areas.

Most likely places we can make a difference are in areas that the commercial sector won't mess with, due to the lack of large and/or quick returns on investment. Look to the world of open source software. Twenty years ago, Lunix (and most other open source SW) was nothing (much didn't even exist). But some found a niche that couldn't or wasn't being filled by the commercial world. The rest is history. The total market for Linux devices and software was $11 billion last year and is expected to rise to $35.7 billion by 2008. (1)

In summary, whether or not the rest of the world is digital or not is nearly irrelevant with respect to amateur radio. Rule changes, if any, should reflect this fact. The ARRL proposal does not.


(1) http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918001_mz001.htm

Rather than object to the ARRL proposal, maybe this group in concert should file a proposal to the FCC eliminating subbands and defining strict limits on automatic operations or other defined problems.

What assuption Pete ?

If it weren't for the hailstorm of comments filed when those two idiots tried to restrict bandwidths AND our vocal appeals to the league to be continually mindful of our presence, their proposal would NOT have included the "Exemption".

Now, I know it's difficult to predict what "someone" MIGHT do but a good look at history can lead you very very close. A zebra don't change it's stripes !

So you're saying that the thousands apon thousands of military, commercial and private users who have been sucessfully using and continue to use analog voice systems are, like amateur radio, behind the times? do I dare say obsolete? Maybe we should re-define "behind the times"? (or behind the "curve" if you prefer)

So, who cares?. They're using it and it works well!.. However, with regards to amateur radio being forced, I think we aggree there. Don't pass laws where they're obviously not needed, right?

Yes and yes. We agree.

No new rules!
No new rules!
No new rules!

Say it with me brothers....

No new rules!

Or better yet, the next time someone mentions that ham radio is behind the times, maybe we should refer them to the Cellphone text messaging vs morse code contest posted in another thread?

Behind the times my behind!  8)  8)

Will I work to defeat the proposal? YES!

When do we start? NOW! Before it becomes a proposal. We need a well thought out letter we can all send as individuals and as a group to the ARRL that contains good technical and regulatory reasons why this should not be proposed. We need to put them on notice that we will work to defeat this proposal if taken to the FCC.

But, going forward we only have two choices. Create an organization with enough "clout" to counter the ARRL when needed or change the ARRL. I would prefer to change the ARRL. At this time there is no other organization in competition with the ARRL for representation of Ham Radio. AMI is not a "political" organization. How about the 10-10 organization? Glen Baxter?

The ARRL has done much good for Ham radio in the past. It still does good. Recent example: My town wanted to place into law restrictive antenna legislation. The ARRL helped me fight it. I was not a member and they never asked if I was, they just helped. It was defeated. How many of us took our exams from ARRL VEC groups? How often do we refer to ARRL Handbooks?

  One poster said "Name one thing that the ARRL does for Ham Radio". The answer is they do a lot that is taken for granted. License and training materials, fighting BPL, help with RFI and much more. Who would fill the gap if these services and others were lost? What other Ham Radio group has this type of infrastructure? There would not be Ham Radio today if not for the ARRL. Granted, this was in the past. We need to work on the future and the best way to do that is to change the ARRL. They really are the only game in town.

  So, if it sounds like I am "defending" the ARRL organization, I am. Am I going to defend the actions of their present leadership, NO WAY. I am smart enough to pick and choose what I think is good or bad for me. I feel that the ARRL as an organization is basically a good idea. The recent actions of the leadership are the problem.

Action Item #1:  Put all the reasons, technical and regulatory (not emotional), this should be defeated in one place so we can all see them.
Action Item #2:  The ARRL needs flooded with the letter mentioned above via e-mail and snail mail.
Action Item #3:  We need to notify, those of us that are members, our section leaders saying that we will      work to defeat their re-election if this proposal goes to the FCC.
Action Item #4:  Get organized on how to defeat this proposal if it goes to the FCC.
Action Item #5:  Determine a way to rid the ARRL of it’s present leadership.
Action Item #6:  Explore the idea of a competing organization if the ARRL won’t change it’s mind.

Gentlemen,

 What ever I can Help with let me know.

 I Have mentioned before many times we need to move in numbers, and Soon.

 Dayton's coming up SO LET THEM KNOW... There's Our Starting point...

 What ever else is Planned I'm In...

The Oklahoma Section of the ARRL has a mail reflector on QTH.com.  I am a subscriber to that reflector so tonight I posted a message to it outlining in the basics what the proposal says.

I noticed that the only other ARRL section reflector is in Santa Barbara which requires a subscription that I do not have.  If I could post to it, I would have.  Each of you ARRL members check to see if you have a reflector for your section, and if you do, post to the members about your concerns.  If we can stir up enough emotion in the ARRL membership, that may help.

Have a custom suit made from one of the HUZ MAN'S spectrographs with full colors. Wear it to Dayton and explain the patterns (to inqusitive passers by) of a ssb ALC pumping signal with it's barn door leading edge overload heading down your right arm. Show them the last little innocent looking  light blue trace where someone would be in VIOLATION of the new proposed rules without perhaps even knowing it even if they studied the entire operation manual.
Carry a copy of Terman's Radio Handbook and be prepared to recite experiment rusult speech verses reduced bandwidth inteligebility studies contained therein. Avoid wasting time on anyone who may have spent time in the artillery.
Stop by the FCC forum and if you can get between Riley and a few violators who may be trying to make amends in person, ask him how he'd feel about a 10000 percent increase in workload. Tell 'em about the asbestos telephone he would need to survive all the kilocycle police calls.
 I can give you my cell number if you run out of material.

KA8WTK wrote:

"I feel that the ARRL as an organization is basically a good idea. The recent actions of the leadership are the problem. "


As Jim Rome would say, "Rack 'em!"

You nailed it dude!

"None around here Art. And here is the NY metro area which has probably the higest concentration of public service stations in the country. "

NY wasn't one of the "in service" states I would have mentioned. However, NY state recently purchased a M/A-Com statewide digital communications system which will include voice. Actually, voice is just one more data stream so specifying voice is redundant in most cases. I admit NYPD and FDNY are still using analog equipment for day to day ops but are using digital for some specialized functions they don't want picked up on a R/S scanner. Also they have a digital microwave system in process . . . digital is definitely on the way in. However, to say CW, AM, SSB, and keyboard digital modes are on the way out is not accurate as well.


and Pete . . . the only logic left when an organization does thing contrary to their stated purpose is external influence. Since the ARRL seems to be paving the way for a technology that is not in the best interest of their membership and has been informed that this is the case and persists. External influence is a reasonable assumption. I guess that's better than voluntary ignorance. Which would you choose? Let me guess. . . . (face goes blank, eyes glazed) The ARRL is good, the ARRL has my best interests in mind, must plan for the future. Unfortunately, it is not the future of the amateur service that is being served by the ARRL proposal.

One of the problems with trying to influence ARRL policy by using sites like QRZ.com and other forums is that there's no way to assure participation by anyone from the ARRL.   True, ARRL Pres. Jim Haynie shows up from time to time on QRZ.com, but there's nothing pushing him to do so.  Ed Hare, who has told us many times here that he's an employee at the ARRL lab with no policy making power, also participates.

A recent thread on QRZ.com suggested that the ARRL ought to host its own discussion forum.  On such a site ARRL officials would answer questions and explain what they're doing.  But as long as discussions about ARRL policy and procedure take place on sites hosted by others, there is no pressure on anyone from the ARRL to participate.  

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote to my Division Director and Vice Director to ask whether the ARRL was considering creating a discussion forum for the purposes noted above.   Bernie Fuller (Atlantic Div. Director) wrote back to say that discussions had taken place about the ARRL hosting such a discussion forum, but that it was a long way from happening.

"A couple of weeks ago, I wrote to my Division Director and Vice Director to ask whether the ARRL was considering creating a discussion forum for the purposes noted above. Bernie Fuller (Atlantic Div. Director) wrote back to say that discussions had taken place about the ARRL hosting such a discussion forum, but that it was a long way from happening."

What!! . . . direct input from members telling the ARRL what they want . . . . Outrageous . . .

I personally sent that same exact suggestion to Jim Haynie over two years ago in a private email. You can see where that one went. Just because a good idea crosses their desks  ... eh no need to further expalin that one.

Why would they want to communicate with their members directly?

--Larry ER

Afternoon Gents,

 Larry, or is it that they only communicate with certain segments of the collective..

 Either way, Applicable Presure in a positive format with positive reinforcement, the Key being in Numbers, still is the only Hand anyone can offer, lets hope it doesn't get bit off...

 To try and fail, isn't harming anyone..

  To Admit Failure and Try Nothing, is defeat..

 I'm for trying anything and everything Possible...

Guys, set me straight if I am missing something...

In reading the Part 97 rules, I find that HF digital communications below the 10 meter band are limited to 300 baud and 1 Khz bandwidth. If this is the case, how can the proposal be of any help to "digital" modes if you don't get rid of the baud rate/bandwidth restriction? Is there a proposal out there I am forgetting about that allows for more baud rate/bandwidth for digital? Am I reading the rules right?

Also, why would we push HF digital at 300 baud when my VHF packet friends tell me that the VHF packet system (which runs at 1200 baud) is falling apart due to lack of interest and use?

Further, a post stated that the ARRL needed an influx of memebers. It would appear that with this proposal that they may want to attract the "computer" crowd. I know many Hams who have gotten interested in computers to enhance their Ham Radio experience. Many have gotten quite proficient with a computer. Myself, I can't get anyone from the computer crowd even faintly interested in Ham Radio.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Under Part 97.3 "Definitions" bandwidth is defined

Bandwidth. The width of a frequency band outside of which the mean power of the transmitted signal is attenuated at least 26 dB below the mean power of the transmitted signal within the band. (97.3[a][8])

I don't know if I can state my question as clearly as I want to, but I'll try.  

Assuming the Part 97.3 bandwidth definition, under the ARRL bandwidth proposal for an AM signal to comply with that 9 khz limit, wouldn't it have to be rolled off before 9 khz to be down 26 db at the edges?  And assuming you're like me and run mostly old equipment, how would you assure that you were always at -26db at 9 khz? Resurrect the old clipper circuits I guess?

Actually Paul, our macho voices have very little energy up there anyway.
If you look at the scans on my webpage you'll see at least 26db with NO limiting at all on the Vikings !

-27.5 db at 5Khz on the Viking Bud
almost -40db at 10Khz on the V2


 WD8BIL.com  (http://www.wd8bil.com)

Larry Wrote



They don't.

You see  if they really wanted input they would ask. But then one would lose the control of "their" concept. The problem with that is it would be a major task to condense all the opinions into a a viable proposal. So instead they do it in secret and then sell their idea ( supposedly a good thing for the members) so they have a control on it.  Why ask for input from those affected when a small group of people can dictate and then  sell there program.

 Then they offer the written proposal and offer it up for comments but once the time and effort has been put into such a thing the changes if any would be few to none.

If an organization can't take the time and develope a way to get input from those that want to give input then there is a problem.I mean if they can't handle that then how could they handle the larger issues in the hobby today, it's basic management. It may take more time but the members would have a stake in the proposal and will support it with more vigor and excitment.  The way it is done now when it comes out most will just sit back and watch with little support. They have nothing vested in it. This gives the party offering the proposal Carte Blanc on the issue - - it's all control.

People today want to trust those that represent them. Working behind closed doors will not give anyone that trust..........

What we(All Hams) need NOW is a viable proposal countering the ARRL's.  Then we need to focus on DE REGULATION  - - you know operate like the rest of the world.

Well then the next Logical step is to Elect a body of our own and Brainstorm this Idea and Draft up a proposal...FB..

Jack, I would be more than willing to participate . . . 'never have been shy about expressing an opinion.

-ap

With any signal, once you define bandwidth, there are two power levels to be concerned with.  One is the total power of the signal that lies within the defined bandwidth, and the other is the total power that lies outside the defined band.  The ratio of the power within the band compared to the  power outside the band is 26 dB.

That means that the total power outside the bandwidth is 26 dB down from the total power within the defined frequency band, not that the signal strength at a given frequency outside the band is necessarily 26 dB below some randomly high peak within the band as viewed on a specturm analyser.

It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to measure this ratio remotely via skywave propagation.  One problem is that the i.f. bandwidth of the receiver would limit the measurement of the total power outside the defined band.  Noise, QRM and ionospheric propagation effects would mask or distort the figures.  

Measuring bandwidth is more like measuring output power.  The measurements would have to be taken at the transmitter site, by directly sampling the output of the transmitter, using a measuring device with a receive passband several times the nominal bandwidth of the transmitted signal..

Note that the definition specifies mean (total average) power, not peak power or the maximum power indication at some frequency within the defined band as displayed on a spectrum analyser.  It specifies the total power within that defined band versus the total power outside that defined band.

If you thought p.e.p. output was difficult to measure, that's a piece of cake compared with measuring bandwidth using the FCC's accepted definition.

Good Morning Arty, and Everyone,

 There was a Time when I had full Belief, Confidence in Elected bodies that take on a job to represent people, and then when it was appropiate to Follow the Chains of Command...Do So, with atmost integrity that i could muster, well that Time has Passed..for obvious reasons that Some have taken the System and munipulated it to Their Advantage, it's the Truth here That I'm After..That's all i'm interested in at my age Now...Just Tell me the Truth so I can Fix it...Like at my Shop people bring me things to Fix and I ask them Tell me What happened...OK, Well some tell me what Happened and Some tell me a Story, OK, and the Story leads into a Long Trouble shooting Session...then they wonder why the Bill came up High...

 OK, this is the Point I'm Making, What is and What Isn't the Truth and what it will take to Fix the Problem, if there in fact is a problem which at this time I don't see without the Whole Story...in regards to this "Dramatic" up and coming who knows what...

 I have said it before and i will say it again and I know it aggreviates the guys when i do it, But I am involved with some of the best minds in the buisness here and when i have to sit back and watch the Greif and fallout from the League Actions Page after page of Grief...it's the Truth...and all i want to know is "WHY"...are they doing this to people...

 Ok, Enough Ranting But I feel better letting everyone know How i feel about all this...


 It doesn't Take a whole lot to put a body of people together and Facilitate and idea together, Brainstorm it, and produce the Purpose to others...if they're going to ignore the Obvious, Ignore the Truth and Ignore the Members.. then the Time has come for us to step up and Take it back...

 It's up to you Men here to Act, i'll help all I can...

Don's post leads to a questions I was next going to pose concerning the definition of bandwidth and methods of measurement.  

This whole situation is almost surreal.  The ARRL is pushing for more amateurs and at the same time, licensing standards are becoming less and less stringent.  Now the ARRL is proposing a divvying up of the bands on the basis of standards that require technical knowledge to understand and sophisticated equipment to measure.  A ham who hasn't a great deal of either, if he wanted to make sure his station complied with the limits in the bandwidth proposal, would face some choices.  

1) He could find someone with a spectrum analyzer to come to his station and measure his transmitted signal on site.
2)  He could buy a new radio certified by the manufacturer to conform to bandwidth limits.
3)  He could take the time to understand how to accurately perform measurements and then borrow or buy a spectrum analyzer and do his own measurements.
Or...

4) He could just say to hell with it all and keep operating as before.

It seems like only a couple of months ago we were going through this with the PRM for bandwidth limits filed by the two guys who'd gotten in a pissing match with some ESSB experimenters.   Their petition was shot down, yet here we are again.

Hey. If you pick door number 2 then you are the big winner.

And you could use this to purchase your radio....
"0%* for the first 6 months. Thereafter:
Classic: 9.99% to 18.99%
Platinum: 9.99% to 18.99% "

(http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/05/18/4/ARRL-AffinityCC-lrg.jpg)
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/05/18/4/?nc=1

We just hit 800 users on the BBS and all we could get was a little over 50 people to voice their opinion?

I was thinking that having a large group like this could work towards our benefit but less than 7% responded. I mean we have an available 800 votes for any issue we all could support. That could be crucial and could have an effect on any outcome. Who in their right mind could ignore 800 available votes?

I am not a politicaly motivated person. I am just a guy who has  loved radio since I was a child and I inherited a couple of websites. The items being placed up for proposal by the ARRL as of late are taking us farther from radio. I am sure Percy is turning in his grave. It seems the only concerns the league has is getting more members($$$$) even if it means selling out our heritage. I could not support that.

It would be good to know that all would participate if needed.

Not specifically to Gary but to the entire 800 members.

I am certain more than 50 people are interested.

If anyone was to write a concise, 1 paragraph, 5 or 6 sentence Introduction to the concept you wish to convey to the FCC. What would it be? I suggest you craft the concept as something the FCC can do (eg. regulation: modify, add, or delete.), rather than objecting to the ARRL proposal.

It can happen right here in this thread. Don't wait for someone else to do it.


-ap

There are a lot of good relevant comments already posted on this board.  Much of what has already been said could be edited into one concise document.  Pity that so many posts evaporated a few months ago when the site got trashed.


Just a few random thoughts:

As Tom mentioned, I don't like the precedent that would be set if AM were allowed under a mere footnote granting an "exception" to the standard bandwidth apparently based on SSB.

BTW, the League's proposal is more restrictive than Docket 20777, if I recall correctly.  I seem to remember the bandwith figure under that proposal as 3.5 kHz.  I  still have the Docket 20777 stuff on file.  Will need to dig it out.  There were a lot of good arguments against bandwith limitation submitted during that proceeding.

How could bandwidth be defined in such a manner that most amateurs could measure their own signals without expensive test equipment?

The League proposal vastly increases segmentation of our bands, while the trend  in the rest of the world is away from subbands.  The proposed bandwidth subbands, combined with licence class subbands adopted decades ago under incentive licensing, would create an outrageously complex matrix of band segmentation.  It is unlikely that all the band segments proposed for this country could be made to line up with accepted band plans that already exist in the rest of the world.

I would propose eliminating subbands altogether, both by licence class and by emission mode, and using double-sideband AM under the present rules as representing maximum transmitted bandwidth below 28 mHz allowable in accordance with good engineering practice, and then permit undefined modes on the condition that their maximum bandwidth does not exceed that a properly operated DSB AM signal.  Specific bandwidth figures are purposely not mentioned.  I believe that some similarly worded definitions already exist in Part 97.

Above 28 mHz, FM could be used as the maximum bandwidth standard.  On VHF, wideband FM, fast-scan TV or others could set the standard.  But then what about spread spectrum?  I'm not so sure that any bandwidth limitation at all is necessary on vhf and above.

The "good engineering and amateur practice" clause would be retained to continue the illegality of excessively broad signals resulting from spurious sideband products.  This would keep a 10-kc wide raspy cw signal off the air, but allow an experimental digital signal of comparable bandwidth.

It would be a lesser evil to see the regulations relaxed enough to allow a few excessively wide signals from time to time, than to have a complex set of picky bandwidth rules in place just to catch the occasional signal that some might consider too broad.

I have many feelings and a strong passion for our radio hobby. I have pomoted this mode for over 15 years. I have many thoughts as to where I would like to see our hobby go. I would do anything to promote and if need be protect our mode or the hobby.

I do not have the writing skills or the talent to put forth in words what an Italian can say with his hands.( I am part Italian)

What I can offer is a platform to work from. Infrastuctrue. We can generate a site if needed. We can send mass mailings.  I can offer full access to The AMFONE Network- including sites, communication links & servers, conferencing and 17 search engine crawlers for research.

I function my best in a supporting role and I am ready for any attempt at this.

.

So the following would be the Introduction to the concept . . . The preceding comments are good but hard to focus:


"I would propose eliminating subbands altogether, both by licence class and by emission mode, and using double-sideband AM under the present rules as representing maximum transmitted bandwidth below 28 mHz allowable in accordance with good engineering practice, and then permit undefined modes on the condition that their maximum bandwidth does not exceed that a properly operated DSB AM signal. Specific bandwidth figures are purposely not mentioned. I believe that some similarly worded definitions already exist in Part 97. "

This is a fine start.

The points I saw:
1. eliminate subbands.
2. keep mode definition as it relates to AM as the widest bandwidth allowed.
3. allow undefined modes up to the bandwidth of AM?

Q1. All license classes do any mode any where?
Q2. How do we define good engineering practice?

My addition would be a reinforcement of the non interference regulation which exists.

Sorry, Gary. I'm so pissed at the ArrrghL for this exact mentality that I know that they wouldn't consider us even if we numbered 5000! "It is damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead. Who gives a damn what our members think! This is what WE want and they are going to like it!" Sorry for the cynacism but I saw this same attitude when they surveyed for CW several years ago.

Many feel the same way Mike but as hard as it is we can't take that attitude.

 I see it in a differant light. 800 votes are 800 votes and eventually our votes could count somewhere. Not as a majority but as more support towards a  goal. The object is to be organized and ready. The more we our  reconized as a group the more power we gain.

If there are 800 here that dislike what is going on there has to be thousands throughout the rest of the modes. Numbers talk .

This is not an AM issue . It is about our hobby and it's direction.

One step at a time.

Everyones input is important here.

Let's see what we come up with

Back to the concept

 :)

Hi Guys,

 What is Practicle and What is Relevant will best be served, by What is Relative thinking in Todays terms...

 Todays Thinking, Todays World, Todays Needs...Can we bring them up to date...Is it Possible...

Gary, Don, Jack, and all,

 I have a "querrie" on this "bandwidth regulation" issue.--

 How is it the ARRL uses the "rationale" that the FCC wants to, or
 must "streamline" the licensing system in order to justify the
 new license propsals under RM-10867 which they submitted to the
 FCC back in April of last year,--and now they support these "complex"
 bandwidth allocations which would be cumbersome to implement
 AND enforce for the FCC.

 Am I missing something, or is not the ARRL contradicting itself with
 these actions?
 I can`t help but believe that the FCC would look at these bandwith
 proposals, and say "no way".
                                       73, Rene, K1MVP :)

Read the following and think . . . perhaps there's more to the ARRL convolution than meets the eye.

ARRL May 14, 2005
Ham Radio Regulatory Changes Reported Abroad:
Sweden's telecommunication regulatory agency PTS has taken steps to deregulate Amateur Radio and essentially no longer requires a government license. Effective last fall, the PTS turned over Amateur Radio operator "certification" to the Society of Swedish Radio Amateurs (SSA), that country's IARU member-society. Under the new regulatory regime, the SSA administers testing and issues operator certificates and call signs, which have SA prefixes and three-letter suffixes. There's no longer a Morse code requirement for HF access.

Art,

 I read that, and there is Equity in that statement. A possibility exists, Maybe it's time to gather all the Divisions together and I don't mean the Districts I mean the Divisions within the service, start knocking down the walls and making friends...and Really open up this forum of the league and Start Asking the questions that need to be asked...

 Just a thought mind you....

You are correct Gary. It wasn't an AM issue in 1995. They petitioned and surveyed their rank and file members then and did exactly opposite of what the members, (which I was a member then), reported on the survey.  But you are also right in that we have to mobilize to meet them head on. However, I think Art has something there with the SSA. By jockeying for that kind of status, it makes them a defacto powerful communications lobby and voice. Power corrupts. Absolute power, absolutely corrupts.

The ARRL has stated in their June 2005 editorial "It seems to us . . . . "
that FCC regulations/rules is not the way to achieve cooperation among disparate users of the amateur spectrum. Then, they describe their executive committee bandwidth recommendations on page 72. On the same page they state that it is impossible to predict where this shift (in operating modes and procedures) may lead. . . . . yet, they specify that such operating modes will be 3KHz or less unless they are AM or ISB in which case they will be 9 and 6 KHz as an exception.
Obviously, with this presentation the ARRL cannot be wrong . . . they also cannot be correct.
The display of the Icom UT-118 digital voice and data unit on page 70 illustrates the frequency response of the unit while engaged in a digital voice exchange. It shows a signal that is a little wider than 3KHz at the -6dB points. So, an operator using this device would be in conflict with the ARRL band plan right out of the box . . . not counting the energy from -6dB to -60dB which extends nearly to 4 KHz.
Digital voice in a commercial 6.25 KHz "channel" now sounds pretty good. In my early 90s days of working with it the voice quality was really a problem at 25 KHz. Vocoder and other improvements have come a long way in the subsequent decade. The Icom unit is said to sound a bit robotic and that was the description of a police chief back then when I was discussing digital radio communications for his department. Actually, he said the officer on the other end sounded like a Cylon . . .
So, why did I go into this trip down memory lane and how does this relate to the band plan? My current experimenting with digital voice using the G4GUO standard does not fit into the 3 KHz bandwidth "recommendation" so I wouldn't be able to do on the air experiments. . . . but, but, the amateur service is exactly where such experimentation should be conducted, isn't it? I listen to make sure I am not transmitting on top of a QSO in process . .. but the band changes, so there I am happily testing away and some OO with an IC-706 writes me an observer report for being too wide? Yes, I ID in CW . . . for the techno aware. Tho . . . 'might be an OO that doesn't know code . . . never mind . . .
IMO, the statements and "band plan" in the June QST are more a recipe for interference and conflict than a resolution to inter modal problems.
This is simply poor leadership combined with self agrandizing by the ARRL and should be recognized as such.

-ap

YUP !

Yep, Art, that says it all.

And as someone said, if AM were restricted to +- 4.5kc under
those standards, then in reality, the audio would really have
to start rolling off at 3.5-4 kc or so to conform to the curve... yuck!

Remember when Riley went after the Enhanded bandwidth ssber's
a coupla years ago? I think this is what started all of this. So, the
FCC may have some interest in regulating bandwidth, I dunno.
They did exclude AM then too, but came down hard on ssb
enhanced - the ARRL proposal is doing the same thing, but bad
precedent for AM.

This reminds me a little of when amateurs went from spark
to CW standards 85+ years ago. There was lots of P&Ming.
But it was a different time.  We had  quickly evolving technology
and the ham radio population was growing in leaps and bounds.
They HAD to narrow the signals cuz a few would take up the whole
band.

However, now, the situation is quite the opposite.  Technology has
settled down into a nitche requiring <15kc MAX per signal, no matter
what mode, more or less.  But the biggest thing is that the ACTIVE
ham population has matured and peaked... and now declining in
numbers. We've said it before, and will again: At this rate, you will
hear just static when you call CQ thirty years from now.

There will be PLENTY of room on the bands in the near future. And
there's already plenty of room NOW if we were to expand the
phone portions down. [like the ARRL proposes] .  This is the part
of the ARRL proposal I like. If it flies, we can operate phone down
to 3625? and 7100?  I think...  But the bandwidth restrictions suck.
No need to do that at all. Complicates things technically, kills
innovation/ experimentation, produces bas ass kc cops for no
good reason, and interferes with our pursuit of "ham happiness".

I am for taking the positive part of the ARRL's proposal for at
LEAST an expansion of the phone bands [but, better to have
no mode restrictions at all!]  and doing away with any mention of
bandwidth.

ie, I will support a NEW proposal to the FCC that axes for a
gentlemen's agreement  regarding mode on any portion of the
ham bands, like 160M is now. That pretty well says it all.  [Even
if we have to reserve the bottom 50kc to weak signal CW/PSK31
modes to keep those guys happy, that's still OK and a vast
improvement!]

Again, as we witness the declining numbers and use of the ham
bands, let's give ourselves the most unrestricted use and fun as
possible before it fades away. The last thing we need is more gov't
regs out of sync with the rest of the whirl to choke off what little
future activity we have left.

One last point... how many new and young AMers do you hear on
the band? I can think of just one... Bill, KE1GF.  The rest of us are
the diehards who love ham radio to the end, AMers or not. The
newbies come and go every day, but diehards are the last to go
and are numbered. We are now witnessing ham radio ACTIVITY
trends in 1935, but going in reverse.  

Big populations require lots of regs. Smaller groups require less.
Time to lighten up like the rest of the whirl.

T

I agree that expansion of phone privilege to all the amateur bands would go a long way toward resolving a lot of issues today. What I am emphasizing, and doing a poor job of it, is in order to get the phone operation as described a change to the rules and regs would be necessary. Phone is separated from CW by *regulation* so in order to facilitate the ARRL 'suggested' band plan there would have to be a change in regulation . . . and while they are about it . . . the bandwidth restriction rides in and grows like a wart. So despite the ARRLs "it seems to us. .  ." (they must have a mouse in their pocket) . . . 'regulation is not the way', they will require regulation change to effect the band plan.
I didn't say they were stupid at the ARRL I said they weren't representing me as I wish them to. . .


-ap

I am not aware of any significant expansion of the phone bands proposed under the League's threatened petition.

Last time I checked, the proposal was to expand the 75m. phone band  only 25 kc/s, down to 3725, with the licence class subband system still intact.  Phone was to be specifically omitted from the 3 kc subband down to 3625, reserving these frequencies for wideband digital, with specfic provisions that this spectrum would NOT  become part of a "defacto" expansion of the voice subband.

Has the League made revisions to  this concept that I am not aware of?

It will be next to impossible to get everyone to agree on every detail of an alternative petition, or response to the League's petition, assuming one is ever submitted.  For example, some may be opposed to specific bandwidth limits, but would want to retain subbands with an expansion of the phone portion, say, down to 3600.  Others may prefer eliminating subbands altogether, with no specific bandwidth limitations and relying entirely on voluntary band plans.  Someone else might think bandwidth limits are ok, but that the figure should be something like 15 kc/s per channel across the entire band.

Since FCC rulemaking proposals usually combine several rulemaking petitions dealing with the same general subject,  in areas where there is no consensus,  proponents of each idea should submit their own petitions instead of trying to reconcile all the possible alternatives in one submission.  The next step will be public comments to each submission.  Supposedly after considering comments received on all the various petitions, the FCC will release a NPRM if they feel any of the petitions have merit.

So basically, rather than submitting a group of distinct proposals in one petition it might be more effective to submit more than one separate petition, each one representing a palatable alternative for the AM community.  But multiple petitions should be coordinated in such a fashion that they would offer a variety of acceptable alternatives in opposition to the bandwidth concept, without negatively attacking one another.

Oh, so the ARRL says 3kc is OK down to 3625, but no phone?  Guess I missed that. Gee, I was actually considering the task of lengthening some of my antennas...  :lol:

Well, in that case, guess there's no part of their petition that I agree with.

Tnx for the clarification, Don.

T

Does anyone think RM-10740 (bandwidth petition filed 8-23-03) had any kind of influance on the ARRLs proposals? I thought it was put to sleep. :?

Good points Don . . .  pulling the 65 supporters together in a single concept would be the equivalent of herding cats or a tome.

I think we have several members who don't know how to effectively rebut the many facets of the ARRL proposals/band plans.
You suggest a solid approach.
With a template and a concept submission to the FCC is not difficult. . .  it is little more than a clear explanation of what you want done. Several such submissions will have one effect for certain. Since I suspect most would involve a structure not in accord with the ARRL proposals/suggestions it will show that the ARRL is not representing a significant portion of the amateur community. It will also (probably) create a common thread of regulation which the FCC can compile into sensible, less structured, and effective rulings.
Further, multiple proposals would less likely be labeled as the product of a niche group.
To accomplish this from a base mostly populated by AMers we must reach out to our friends and associates who have other interests. Involve them in the effort. Create your proposal: whether it is the adoption of the Canadian type of licensing and band structure, or the disestablishment of sub bands by mode as in 160, or the creation of another band plan entirely, become active. Even if you think you can't write, you can think and you can articulate sufficiently to express yourself on a bulletin board . . . that, in a proper format, is sufficient.
If you can't do that, at least reach out and express your opinion in other venues. We are preaching to a large choir here. Let's multiply that effect.

I will look for a good example of an FCC submittal and post a link to it for a template.

After that the next step is yours.

From the FCC WebSite:

A Petition for Rulemaking (“Petition”) is generated by an entity outside of the FCC. The petition suggests new rules or changes to existing FCC rules and regulations. Unless directed otherwise in the FCC’s Public Notice seeking comment on the petition, the public has 30 days from the date of the Public Notice to submit comments on whether the FCC should grant or deny the petition. After reviewing the comments received in response to the Petition for Rulemaking, the FCC will issue an Order disposing of the petition, a Notice of Inquiry (NOI), or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Copies of Petitions for Rulemaking are available for viewing on the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) and for inspection in the FCC’s Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. Petitions for Rulemaking may also be available electronically over the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=retrieve_list&id_proceeding=04-140&start=151&end=155&first_time=N

Thanks to the folks who contributed to this reference.

-ap

Then a draft is in Order, and when they submit We Submit in Numbers...

Time to put up or shut up I guess. Honestly, I found the "Call To Arms" language a bit strong. The well thought out posts by Don and Art mirror my concerns.

Two years ago when RM-10740 seemed to be threatening the bands I wrote many letters to the FCC. I copied them to my regional ARRL director and Jim Haynie and asked for support. The BPL issue was just starting to rear it's ugly head at the time as well.

Out of the blue I received a telephone call from Jim Haynie. During the conversation Jim told me 10740 was dead. I wasn't allowed to ask how he knew that. We didn't need to worry about that issue but he would need our support in the future for a sensible and well structured band plan initiative the ARRL was working on.
We talked about BPL as well and the ARRL's growing battle against that. My quotes above are my recollections of that conversation and not exact. No paper or digital records exist.

I wasn't a member of the ARRL at that time which makes the phone call that much more remarkable. I had not been a member for many years. I told Jim about my reasons for quitting. The 220 MHz giveaway to UPS and power restrictions for AM. After the phone call I decided to rejoin the ARRL. BPL was, and still is, a concern that eclipses this band plan issue. Above and beyond my membership fees I have made three large (for me) cash contributions earmarked for the BPL fight. I have the coffee cups and lapel pins to show for it as well as monthly mail requests for more.

Fast forward to the ARRL's band plan roll out. As a member now I receive emails from my regional director and his minions on a regular basis. Lately the talk has centered around the band plan. Jim Weaver K8JE has asked for comments on several occasions to help shape the ARRL's petition to the FCC. Many of us have returned our concerns and he and every other regional director have taken heat over this issue but the petition has not changed. It would seem the ARRL used the regional directors as a sounding board and a firewall. This months news letter contained no mention of the band plan issue. The ARRL rolled out the final plan in next months issue of QST without change.They state in the QST article "This plan still needs tweaking" but if it is Tweaked at all it, in my opinion, it will be punctuation or legal speak.

AM and ISB have become the red headed stepchildren and the possible bargaining chips between the ARRL and the FCC. HF packet has been recognized and AM (our heritage mode) will be allowed only as an exception to the rules. I have written Jim Weaver and Jim Haynie asking for clarification. My email was bounced by Weaver and no phone calls from Haynie yet.

Art, you hit the nail on the head. I read the "IT SEEMS TO US..." column by K1ZZ and was shocked to find the almost final (yeah right) band plan in the back of the issue. I also saw the Icom digital box and remembered my conversation with Jim Haynie. He said at the time the ARRL's new band plan was focused on the new digital technologys coming soon. This is All about new digital modes that haven't been rolled out yet and tight controls on bandwidth. What's next? Type acceptance? It's about the ARRL's way too cozy relationship with the radio manufacturers and advertising dollars. Anybody that watched the chat that accompanied the live video feed from Dayton surely saw the unending questions about weather or not Yeasu or Kenwood introduced the new model 70,000 DU/PRQ or whatever. Money talks.

So, What to do. Vote with my wallet first. Thank the ARRL for it's support of AM by ending my support of they're corporate agenda. I will support any reasonable effort to reestablish AM as a mainstream HF mode and not an exception to the rules. I'll make my vote count as well by voting for ARRL candidates that share my interests. So, Hear I am.

Mike Monnier
W8BAC

Maybe I missed it. Did you ever post a good "example" FCC submittal?

Yep . . . up a few posts . . . submittal process and links to example (actual) proposals in the comment phase. There are examples of high falutin lawyered up props and simpler straight forward ones. . .

-ap

Hey TNX!

I will use these to form my submission to the FCC when the ARRL proposal becomes an NPRM.

Here's a signature for ya Steve..... free of charge !!


Never drink downstream of the herd !

Check this out (I think I would prefer the ARRL's proposal):

 Just posted on QRZ.com (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=c8e90693e9d0b3c5a96e88523fd6622a;act=ST;f=7;t=92138)

 The current subband structure shows the backward & outdated position that
 amateur radio in America still clings to desperately. That's exactly what the
 much-discussed ARRL bandwidth proposal is all about - a desperate effort to
 cling to the outdated concept of subband segmentation.  Most of  the rest of
 the world, including Canada, abandoned subbands years ago.    Despite a
 couple of claims to the contrary, 160m works very well in this country
 without any segmentation, by emission mode nor by licence class.

Why's that Don? You would be able to operate phone on 3675 on a Saturday night if it was clear? . . . or shift to 3575 etc. . . . unless those frequencies were involved in gentlemens agreements to use data or digital voice or something else . . . my point is 160M seems to work well . . .
Are you saying that can't happen on 80 and up? . . .

-ap

A wide open band plan wouldn't benefit AMers much. Right now we have over 200 kHz of frequencies on 75 meters. Yet 99% of AM activity takes place on one or two frequencies. Often AM QSOs are spaced only 5 kHz apart, even when the band is not crowded.

Steve, that's behavior and the effect of a gentlemens agreement to operate in certain areas. It illustrates the ability of amateurs to regulate themselves with the current phone allocation. This is a perfect example. Is there a little stress on the edges? Yes. Is it manageable. Yes. We do it every day. The disestablishment of CW protected zones in the face of declining use of the mode (It was the ARRL who promulgated the current ongoing demise of CW as a major operating mode as a percentage of active amateurs.) would create more opportunities for AM communities eg: the traditional 3885 +/- 15 and 3825 + 25. Maybe 3685 and 3585 would make good AM calling frequencies as well. In the face of declining CW activity there is an increase in AM activity. Add, ESSB, the ARRL mantra (oooh digital), ordinary SSB, DXing, experimenting, those who like to set up nets, and voice activity is increasing. And if/when digital voice comes along it will have a home as well. More spectrum seems appropriate.

Am I stretching here?

Yep, moving major AM activity WAY down the band would be a good solution.

BTW, when I hear him on, Dave/K1ZZ appears to operate maybe 98% CW. I've heard him on ssb once - talked with him on 6M.  So I would expect him to have a soft spot for CW sub band regs. Keep that in mind.

As to why do Amers cluster around a few tight and crowded channels on most bands? It's the herd mentality. We all like to hang out where there's the best chance of being heard and running into our like minded buddies.

I've often heard guys call CQ down the band with big signals and nobody comes back. Yes, there's a few AM groups that hang down on 3825, 3830, 3810, etc during Sundays and other days, but the participation is limited, almost like a chat room at times.

Yes, there IS a bit of resistance from the ssbers when they hear us operating out of the 3870-3890 area. But I feel it's directly related to crowded 75M phone band space. On 160M, no one seems to care if Amers are on 1885, 1900, 1945, 1960, 1970, 1990, etc. Simply cuz the band is not crowded.  Try that on 40M... phone portion too crowded. Same for 20M.  But on 10M you can operate anywhere from 29000-30000 without much BS.... Cuz there's LOTS of PHONE space, even when the sunspots are big.

I still feel the solution to this bandwidth thing, AMers living in peace with ssbers, and less battles for everyone is opening the ham bands for operation anywhere, on any mode, when the freq is clear.

My point is that 3870-3890 is presently a very crowded area by both ssb and AM. There's not a spot on the whole phone band that is not, except for maybe 3750-3765 at times.  If there were another 250 kc added to the phone band, I could see totally abandoning 3870-3890 and operate AM between 3575-3675 in peace.   At the current rate of activity, I don't think we have enuff ham QSO's to thickly fill up another 250kc on 75M.

T

That's what I am thinking . . . all frequencies, all modes . . . it works on 160M and even diverse and densely packed 75M.
There will always be miscreants and folks who aren't gentleops who will violate the rules and agreements. Additional structure and more regulation will not solve this problem.

Since AFAM the predominant thought I would like to hear from those who think this is *not* the right way. I want to understand all perspectives. Don, why would the ARRL plan be better? You didn't directly say that but that was what I read into your comment. Did I read it wrong?

--break--

One topic that has been discussed recently is the elimination of the bands below the phone bands in the amateur service because they are being used less and less. Then there could be another service created. I speculated the spectrum might be sought after for Winlink kinds of operation . . . note I have no basis for this . . it is simply discussion.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough.  I said I might prefer the ARRL proposal to what is proposed by WA0LYK.  Read this part carefully:


When I first read his proposal, it appeared he was advocating limits to occupied bandwidth as well, but after rereading it several times, I think what he is getting at is the minimum possible bandwidth that would accomodate a given mode, and specifically not any definition of occupied bandwidth.  Now, if this does not imply any specific limit to occupied bandwidth, then he may have come up with a good idea. Where he said "the necessary bandwidth could be defined as 2.70 kHz in the emission designator, while the occupied bandwidth of the transmitter would be limited to 3.00 kHz," his wording appeared somewhat ambiguous, that the official designation of 2.70 kHz may imply a 3.00 kHz limit to occupied bandwidth.  That would be even less acceptable than the ARRL proposal.  But if, as I am now thinking he is proposing,  there would be no implied limit to the actual occupied bandwidth, other than "good engineering and amateur practice", this would be a definite improvement over the League's proposal.

In any case, after you have carefully read and thought about his proposal,  what do you think?

What the bandwidth concept is purported to do is to accomodate new and undefined modes to operate in our bands without the necessity of going through the slow and painstaking process of changing Part 97.  I do see merit in thas concept, but the problem is how to accomplish it without putting AM or other incumbent modes at risk by relegating them to an "exception" to the rules in the form of a footnote that could easily be deleted at some future date, and without placing any new restrictions on present day operation, such as specific limits to occupied bandwidth.

The League's proposal seems tied to a firm commitment to maintain subband segmentation no matter what; indeed their proposal would end up with a subband matrix based on a combination of occupied bandwidth, emission mode and licence class, that would be even more complex than what we have at present, which IMO is already overly complicated.

Of course, the bandwidth concept as well as WA0LYK's proposal, are not necessarily tied to subband segmentation at all.  Not even the League's proposal would create any subband segmentation on 160.  That same concept could be applied to the rest of the bands as well.  As I see it, the only segmentation that might possibly be justified would be a narrow segment at the bottom ends of the bands to "protect" cw operation, so that slopbucketeers or someone running a 3 kHz-wide "digital" mode wouldn't park in the middle of where the cw operators congregate, just because they legally could do so, or perhaps because they have a "no-code" agenda, kinda like the 3878 bunch that parked there purposefully to annoy AM'ers.  But despite a couple of claims to the contrary on 160m that led to a petition to the FCC (which was ultimately rejected), in the 20+ years since 1800-2000 kHz was fully restored to amateurs, there hasn't been enough of a problem to justify FCC regulation.  There's always the provision of "good engineering and amateur practice" to fall back on in the case of 3878-style deliberate QRM'ers.

Watsa?

Yep, you're right Don . . . wa0lyk plan certainly addresses several issues but would result in more regulation. In that context, I agree with you. The ARRL plan would be better.

I have to admit, the primary reason for getting my extra license in 1976 was because I couldn't remember the sub bands . . .

You bring up a good point. There is nothing to stop a digital transmission from firing up on traffic in progress, or an AMer, or SSB, or CW, except the non interference rules. If AFAM is the right way to go we will need some teeth in the "listen before transmitting" rules. FM repeaters are required to do so . . . can't figure out why everyone wouldn't be held to the same standard.

'suppose we would get into hair splitting of firing up 5KHz away from an AM QSO in process on the down(or up) band side with your fine rice box . . . but thats not new . . . besides . . . that's what brick wall filters are for . . . .

How about AFAM for all HUMAN operators ???
Put the WinLink Robots in some kind of prison !! :evil:  :evil:  :evil:

Ah, a separate area for WinLink . . . that's what I think is actually in process . . . . the CW ops will be very unhappy where I think WinLink wants to go  . . . If the CW guys have a clue they should be full on board with AFAM.


-ap

I think it has nothing to do with a gentlemens agreement. Who were the parties to the agreement? How is it that SSB is heard quite often on the supposed AM frequencies?

AMers QRMing each other is borne of hidebound operating practices, nothing more.






Nice pun!

The CW guys (me) will be the first to be squeezed out if an "all mode anywhere" policy gets put into effect. Do you think anybody is gonna give a rats ass about my QRP CW qso in progress when they want to fire up right on top?....

Weak signal modes should absolutely be protected!.  :evil:  :evil:  :evil:

Weak Signal Mode

I've heard that term before and didn't understand it. What does signal strength have to do with mode? Shouldn't weak signal AM receive the same protection as weak signal CW?

Oh, I think the CW guys have a lot more to worry about than someone firing up near them . . . like the total takeover of the section of the band they, by their own protectionism, lose to digibots . . . when they could have seen the writing on the wall and prevented it  . . . .

Besides, I operate CW  . . . thre's nothing like running weak signal with a nice narrow filter and pulling a signal out of the noise . . . I have done so in the middle of a SSB contact and the SSB folks didn't even know I was there . . . is it optimal, no . . . is it fun, you bet  . . .

-ap

I didn't say near them, I said on top of them....

Just exactly how could we have "prevented it" Art? through the ARRL? please don't make me laugh!  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Although we both enjoy CW, I think we disagree about what "fun" is...
It isn't much fun trying to pull a QRP CW signal out from under a 1KW SSB station that fired up on top of a weak signal CW QSO already in progress. narrow filter or not!...

Here's reality,..... I'm enjoying a CW QSO with another QRP station, an SSB station asks... "is the freq in use" no one replys on SSB....

"CQ CQ CQ the slopbucket net...."  that's what's going to happen.

So now I have to fire up my ricebox and tell the dumb ass guy "the freq's in use, there's a CW QSO in progress".... oh yea, that's gonna work real well!  :x  :x
 

Ok, lets just call it QRP, low power... instead of weak signal..

Maybe QRP AM stations should receive the same protection as a CW QRP stations and SSB as well.... A QRP subband makes more sense than the way it is now...(or the way it may become)..

Flame suit on!  :oops:

What was that FCC rule about minimum amount of power needed to communicate??

Ahh Glen . . . the prevent referred to the capability of preventing a more wide ranging issue than interference to a single CW communication.
There is no protection from someone who intends to QRM you. Those who do so will still do so whether there is a regulation against it or not. You know I'm right on this. More rules may make you feel better but it won't when the same bloke QRMs ya . . . then you can be twice as offended . . . .

-ap

Welp, We can dig alot of holes, and throw alot of Dirt, But just like out at Dayton from VIA the web Site, concerning Grass Roots Political Interest, next election I will be voicing what i can...

It comes to my mind we could use Some New Blood in Both the league and our goverment...Some Young Minds with fresh ideas...

Gentlemen,

     In my style, more to observe the confusion than to contribute to it, I have read this dialogue with interest over the last few days.  Its voices mirror the contemporary state of amateur radio...echoes of the past.

     Is the issue one of bandwidth, regulation, control, or lost control?  Our hobby has become an anachronism, with a League that speaks not so much for hams, simply for more hams than anyone else.  Even if we can find folks to out-data cell phone text messaging.

     Why do we wring our collective hands against the League's bandwitdth proposal when their most vigorous campaign -- against the dreaded BPL -- has amounted to zilch?

      The opportunity to play AM will survive, just as my 32V has survived.  There just aren't that many of us.  Even fewer motivated to do more than exchange barbs on a forum.

     So, let's be kind to one another and support what we really want...a lifetime to amplitude modulate signals in the style to which we've become accustomed.  When you reflect on the fact that most of us are about the same age as a 32V, it's not that much to ask.  And, whomever is in charge will have neither the interest nor the apparatus to run us to ground.

     Live free or die.  Or, was it never say die?

Are you saying most hams, particularly AM'ers, are a bunch of young squirts?  The 32V series is recent.  For REAL old buzzard rigs, think 849's and 204-A's.

I do recall  when I moved to Massachusetts in 1973, and picked up a National HRO at an estate sale and started listening to shortwave, I was astounded to hear KIDS (WA1HLR, WA1EKV, K1ETP, WA1QIX, etc.) operating AM.

Looking at recent photos, it is obvious that creeping oldbuzzardism is taking its toll.

The sword of Charlemagne the just
Is ferric oxide, known as rust.
The tusks of mastedons in brawl
Are now billiard balls.
Great Ceasar's bust is on the shelf
And I don't feel so well myself.

There's a technique to overcome that. It's called zerobeating !!

Even using older receivers with decent filters, cw qsos in the presence of heavy qrm can easily be maintained. It is one mode that NEEDS the least protection.

How do I know ?????
800+ Q's in 8 1/2 hours on 40 meters last field day !!!
Drake Twins barefoot !! (T4X, R4A)
On 20 meters Jim ran 100+ Q's an hour for 4 hours straight.
Can't do that on phone !!!

Just to clarify again, I'm talking about QRP CW .... 5 watts or less operating in the so-called all modes, anywhere situation.

Here's my quote;

"It isn't much fun trying to pull a QRP CW signal out from under a 1KW SSB station that fired up on top of a weak signal CW QSO already in progress. narrow filter or not!..."

Zero beating the SSB qso isn't going to help diddly-squat.

I don't understand what operating a 100 watt CW rig in the CW subband during field day has to do with operating a qrp CW station in an all mode anywhere bandplan  :?:  :?:  :?:

Hi Art;

I'm never offended, just speaking my mind like everyone else.
Yes, I absolutely agree with you about folks who intend on QRM'ing you.

but answer me this.... do you think it will be a better situation for the ham who's main interest is operating CW if we go to an all mode anywhere plan?......

FACT: In that portion of 40 meters SSB during field day is quite heavy do to the foreign guys trying to work US ops in split mode !

Fact: Zero beating an SSB signal is the same as working the ZB of any other emission.

Fact: In this neck of the woods, 100 watts on FD is QRP !!!

AND... In 37 years of hamming I've NEVER been qrmed off the frequency
when using CW.

... -.-

"but answer me this.... do you think it will be a better situation for the ham who's main interest is operating CW if we go to an all mode anywhere plan?...... "

My answer is an unqualified yes. It will be a better situation. The reason I say this is I believe the CW portion of the bands is being cultivated for takeover and reallocation to the WinLink "mode". The protectionism that the CW ops feel because their exclusive allocation, in the face of declining (as a percentage of active operators) participation, will be the end of your QRP CW. The old CW ops are literally expiring and new CW ops aren't replacing them. This leaves huges chunks of spectrum relatively underutilized (except at contest time when I get on CW too) and the phone sections crowded. Continue with the protectionism and you will be all frequency all mode in the phone section of the bands with your QRP CW. . . .
Not even the expected 'if I can't have it all, no one can' washes . . . CW will be excluded and the 'sub-band' will be occupied by neither phone nor CW as we know it.
That's my opinion after a lot of study and networking.

-ap

Hi Art,

Sounds like you've done some reading on WinLink.

Could you tell me what  real world applications you expect
it to have on 80M?  ie, what can an HF transmission of email
do that a standard cable or satellite system can't?  Why would
hams want to use it since the bandwidth is too narrow for
anything but text or slow scan?

Is it just another more modern version of 2M "packet" or am
I missing something?

T

go here . . . http://winlink.org/ and you can read about what it does. This is the tip of the iceberg . . . then you get to voice over IP etc. Can this be better done with wireline and conventional internet systems . . . you bet . .  just like car phones were better than autopatches . . .

-ap

Tnx for the info, Art.  

Yes, I had read that page before, but thought maybe there
was something additional I had missed.

I think the passage below is the "sizzle" they are using to
sell it:

"The mobile user, whether on the high seas, jungles of a
remote region, or  traveling in an RV,  has the ability to
provide family and friends with the state of their safety
and well-being along with the joys of their travels.  Mobile
users may post their positions on a map and gain access to
a host of global text-based and graphic weather information
and other helpful material whenever or wherever they need
it.  The Winlink 2000 system is currently being utilized for  
emergency communications where local or regional  
communications are disrupted, including the the loss
of the Internet, and where accuracy of information is
paramount."


So, the next time I'm on an African Safari, I can set up an
80M Yagi and phone home on my laptop.  I wouldn't wanna
make it too EZ by dialing a cell phone.   :D    Ho-Hum.

T

. . .like I said, about equal to the auto patch functionality. . .except the audacity to underwrite and create a separate entitiy was not even thought of for the autopatch . . . . .. But this is 'digital' and the alpha particle of the future.
I apologize for the rancor but the more I learn and see the more annoyed I get. Time for a break to regain perspective.

-ap

Bud, are you not understanding I'm talking about a situation that does not exsist yet? ALL MODES ANYWHERE?

FACT: 100watts is not QRP... no matter where you live.

FACT: If CW and SSB share the same spectrum space, and you operate QRP CW you WILL be QRM'd.

I understand perfectly Glenn.
You are defending a mode that deserves no more protection from qrm than any other mode !!

What's the old saying u guyz use;

Get thru with CW ?????

I'm not going to argue about the level of CW activity on the bands. Of course it's declining, along with SSB, packet, and everything else. The fact is, there are still, very many active CW operators. Of course, you wouldn't know that unless you actually tuned your receiver down to the CW portion of the band. Did you listen last night to the lower 50khz on 40 meters? did you listen to 30 meters? well I did, and there were many CW QSO's taking place. Have you listened to the level of CW activity during a corntest? packed with CW signals... so I guess all these CW stations I'm hearing must be the ghosts of dead hams? or maybe they're LDE's ?

I'll say it one more time.. there are still very many hams who enjoy operating CW. What's is happening is we're eliminating someone elses fun just to promote special interests in digital modes, oh, but it's for the good of ham radio. Load of crap. It's really a shame. Using the advancement of ham radio argument doesn't hold water. Let's not let a hand full of people eliminate an older but still valid mode of communications because of their selfish personal interests and political motiviation. Yes, my personal interest is CW but you will never hear me saying "eliminate these outdated modes SSB, RTTY, Packet, and AM.  You think they will go away on their own? that's just fine with me, just don't kill it before it's actually dead. This reminds me of the folks who have tried to eliminate AM over the years because it's an "old outdated mode".

One more reminder before I pull out of this thread... Ham radio is not a business... it's a hobby. Stop trying to force new technology and eliminate old technology. Do I dare say, the majority of the folks here on the AM forum enjoy old technology, in fact they prefer it!... there is no need to piss on somebody's elses parade in order to promote your preference for new technology.   ..._._

"Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny"  (Frank Zappa)

No where Glenn can you point to where I suggested the ELIMINATION of CW, QRP CW or any other mode.



Where do you get off assuming I'm ignorant about CW operation ????? :evil:
YES I DO CW !! I was one of the stations you might have heard LAST NITE on 40CW !!! Worked France, Italy and Arkansas !!!!

CW deserves no more protection than any other mode !!!

All modes on all frequencies is no more a threat to CW than it is to AM !!

Buddly, those comments were not directed at you... Sorry if it came across that way.. You'll notice I didn't include quotes from you in my post.
I understand you operate CW..

However.... you wrote..

That reminds me of a "hamfest", actually an ARRL convention, that I attended in downtown Boston sometime in the mid-1970's while Docket 20777 was pending.

The event took place at the Statler-Hilton hotel, with an indoor fleamarket in a room in the basement.  It was a pretty sorry excuse for a fleamarket, with only a half dozen or so vendors, but many of the area AM'ers were in attendance.

I went to several of the forums, including the ARRL forum.  The speaker was a very attractive young lady, whose name and callsign I don't remember, but definitely not the "hamsexy" type.  The subject of Docket 20777 came up, and she stated that the League's policy on AM was one of "benign neglect", and that the League was opposed to outlawing AM, but wanted to just "let it die a natural death."

Later on, I was talking to one of the FCC guys (Johnny Johnston didn't show up for that one).  He mentioned that he had read through some of the comments on Docket 20777 and went on to say, "There are even some hams who want to keep AM."

It seems that one thing Docket 20777 accomplished in a positive sense was to let the amateur radio "establishment" at ARRL, FCC and major ham radio magazines, know that there was a viable AM community within amateur radio.  At that time, a visitor from another planet could have thoroughly read all the currently published ham radio magazines and handbooks and would not have had the slightest clue that there was any such thing as amateur radio AM. After that docket proceeding, AM seemed to get a lot more recognition by these groups and they began to take us seriously.

If we hadn't got our campaign together to save AM, and hadn't responded massively to that Docket, AM would have probably been eliminated by FCC action in the late 70's.

OH.... OK Glenn !!! :)  :)

Never mind !!!  :lol:  :lol:

Buddly,

I'll be looking for you on 40cw!!   :)  :)  

Peace  ;)

This is demonstrably false. An AM op has to do the same thing (I speak from experience). I see no difference between AM and CW in this respect.

IINM, it exists on 160 meters.

You can't see the difference between voice mode and non-voice mode in this situation  :?: You are proving my point Steve. If an SSB signal starts up on your AM QSO, you can very easily zero beat the SSB station and he will hear you when you tell him to move (of course he may not listen  :roll: ) Can't do that on CW.

Yes, ... on 160 meters... a true example of a gentlemans agreement that actually works...... but we will see what happens if this change takes place on the other bands...   :shock:  :shock:  Only time will tell. I bet most operators think 160 has subbands like the others.....

Maybe I'm mistaken but there seem to be a lot more "gentleman" on 160 than 75  :roll:  :roll:  

Sure you can !! We've done it many times on 3885 where someone is piss weak and gets our attention with cw.

A few years back i frequented 1858Khz with K1YN and the guyz (SSB).
We had many a qso with guyz on cw.

The limiting factor is as you mentioned.



But from a mode standpoint, there's no diff !!!

That's funny (SSBers listening to you on AM - NOT) No bro you missed my point entirely.

You've clearly never dealt with any of the bonehead slopbuckets on 75 meters. The ONLY way they will hear you is to blast them with a high-power SSB signal. Trying to talk to them with AM is the same as trying to talk to them with CW.  

And there is no need to zero-beat them. They zero beat you.  :evil:

You are correct about the difference between 160 and 75. I don't think it's as much about more gentlemen on 160 as it is about the band being les populated in genera,l and the propagation keeping QSOs in different geographic parts of the country from butting heads as much.

Steve, I agree with your thinking about the situation on 160.

Hey, how about a middle road, then?  If a voluntary plan seem to  work reasonably well on 160, why not try it on 15 and 10, maybe even 40 meters, first, to see how it goes.

Open up those two bands for a two-year trial. If it works out, then go for it on all HF bands. If it doesn't work out after two years, then the regulation sunsets to what it was before. What's the problem with trying something and continuing with it if it works or going back if it doesn't. There's nothing guaranteed in this world.