The AM Forum

There is a posting on QRZ.com in the homepage Headlines article " FCC activates the Bandwidth process! ". 
One posting is by Howard Teller KH6TY, half-way down the long page.  He was on the ARRL ad hoc HF digital committee that "wrote" the ARRL's petition.  He is a dissenting member of the committee.

Here are 2 articles written by him on this matter:


http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html

The second one is the .pdf of his comments to the FCC under RM-11306.
The PDF file is below:

Tnx, Tom, for posting Skip's writings here.

He presents the most compelling digitally-related case agains the scheme from Newington, in effect, pointing out the collusion of the League in endorsing a proprietary digital system being marketed to RV owners, campers and offshore yachtsmen to use ham radio as a way to obtain email from the internet.

His points, combined with the faulty premise that a tiny specialty should dictate to popular/mainstream modes, help show why their proposal should be rejected.
 

Let me ask a question:
Why is it necessary to have HF Radio to Internet gateways?

Well Bill, that depends on who you are.

If you're a yachtsman who is too cheap to buy real maritime equipment and too cheap to pay for a proper email service, I guess ham radio and email is real important.  If you're an RVer who's too cheap to pay for cell phone service, it's important.  And if you're a missionary in a jungle someplace and your church can't/won't afford to pay for commercial email service, it's important.

Oh and it's important to ARRL too for a couple of reasons (in my personal opinion.  I make no claim that my personal opinion is indeed fact.)  First off, even though the above folks I described are only licensees rather than really hams, they buy ham equipment.  So they add to the bottom line of the manufacturers who pay for ad space in QStreet.  They're also important because the email systems run on proprietary modems/software (in the case of the ARRL's favourite child: Winlink) and someone, don't know exactly who, is making some cash on every system sold. 

It's all about the money; for both those too cheap to spend what they should based on their needs, and for those who are collecting it.

Remember, I did specify a difference between "licensees" and "hams."  In this context there's a HUGE distinction.

Man, you're kidding?
The real driving force behind all of this digital push is so folks can get their ham ticket to make cheap phone calls???
QTF!

If that’s the case, I can see the logic of the League’s push to lower standards and just dispense with the license altogether! Heck, let’s just combine amateur radio with the “Family Radio Service”. I thought the League was pushing the digital modes for “experimentation” of the amateur service and improvement and discovery of new techniques.

If this is really what it comes down to, Wally buys a ricebox so he can chat with Uncle George back in Podunk Hollow, or Biff buys an IcomYaeWood unit to talk with Buffy back on shore, how in the world can we justify the exclusive use of this expensive public resource of radio spectrum? It’s akin to setting up one’s own telecommunication service on property, in this case radio spectrum, which belongs to someone else.

I like your distinction, there are “licensees” and there are “hams”. Boy that explains it quite nicely. Perhaps that is the real problem; it has become more of an expensive intercom than a service. When I think of all the slopbucket trash I hear on 75 this fits the bill quite nicely. 

Companies and organizations are like people, and need a strong enema every now and then. Too often they drift off track and fail to “stick to their knitting”, the very precepts which made the company or organization great. Go back and look at what HPM felt the amateur service was about, and the founding princiapls of the ARRL, once we lose sight of that, we lose the controlm, rights and privileges to our exclusive frequencies.

One of first principals drilled into the heads of new hams is not to use the service for finanical gain, or “pecuniary interest”. Is not the reverse true? Are you not accruing a pecuniary interest/benefit in routinely using amateur radio to bypass the commercial providers? I draw a distinction here between those who give back to the hobby and those who use it like a giant intercom, but the question is still valid.

I think I need to speak to my League officals and strongly reconsider my membership.

-1UJR

Bruce, I'm reminded of the Amateur's Code.

ARRL Amateur’s Code (as written by Paul Segal W9EEA, 1928)
Usually found on page 8 -10 of the handbooks:

1.   The Amateur is Gentlemanly ……He never knowingly uses the air for his own amusement in such a way as to lessen the pleasure of others.  He abides by the pledges given by the ARRL in his behalf to the public and to the Government.
2.   The Amateur is Loyal….He owes his amateur radio to the American Radio Relay League, and he offers his unswerving loyalty.
3.   The Amateur is Progressive….He keeps his station abreast of science.  It is well built and efficiently.  His operating practice is clean and regular.
4.   The Amateur is Friendly….Slow and patient sending when requested, friendly advice and counsel to the beginner, kindly assistance and cooperation for the broadcast listener; these are the marks of the amateur spirit.
5.   The Amateur is Balanced….Radio is his hobby.  He never allows it to interfere with any of the duties he owes to his home, his job, his school, or his community.
6.   The Amateur is Patriotic….His knowledge and his station are always ready for the service of his country and his community.

And this is the 1993 ARRL Handbook version -

The Amateur is:
1. CONSIDERATE….never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the pleasure of others. 
2. LOYAL….offers loyalty, encouragement and support to other amateurs, local clubs, and the American Radio Relay League, through which Amateur Radio in the United States is represented nationally and internationally. 
3. PROGRESSIVE….with knowledge abreast of science, a well-built and efficient station (Class E!) and operation above reproach.
4. FRIENDLY…. slow and patient operating when requested; friendly advice and counsel to the beginner; kindly assistance; cooperation and consideration for the interest of others; these are the hallmarks of the amateur spirit
5. BALANCED….radio is an avocation, never interfering with duties owed to family, job, school, or community.
6. PATRIOTIC….station and skill always ready for service to country and community.

Most of us probably find 2. corny and/or revolting.  The rest applies today however.  How many of us are guilty of 1. first sentence, and 5. of the old code?

Ah, after reading "LOYAL",, it touches my heart and brings emotions of joy. :) 8)

And just how "PROGRESSIVE" are we?

(http://ka1rci.net/hamshack/images/field_day_2005_06.JPG)

Loyalty is earned.

UJR, there are those who disagree with what I've said about the reasons for the digital, but many agree too.  Charlie AG4YO posted a list of a few Winlink/digital supporters on qrz.com:
http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=9b146f4558fdf98ce2d23cb271b2ae86;act=ST;f=7;t=113018;st=10

Scroll about halfway down and read it.  That list of supporters is telling.  The first, Howard Radke interestingly enough is not a US amateur licensee.




Take a look at 97.113(a)(5).  You'll find that covers the "email" issue quite well, if only it were enforced.

HPM might not be a good example to cite right now. If you've read Alice Clink Schumacher's biography of HPM, you've read that he thought traffic handling WAS ham radio.  That's why he and Clarence Tuska formed ARRL in the first place - to establish trunk lines for the handling of traffic.  He seemed to make concessions to the fact that some hams simply wanted to play with their radios.  Overall though, I think using the HPM example could be seen as "see?  Digital email is just a modern version of the ARRL originally envisioned by HPM."  And perhaps that would be correct.  I thus prefer not to bring HPM into this one.

Wow, is that on a boat? Your boat, Pete? When do I get a ride? 8)

I was asking the same myself....isn't this the reason Bush wants everyone to have wideband internet access? I want someone to show me 108 MB bandwidth in the ham bands for data.

The root word being PROGRESS. HF digital of the type (hype) being pushed here is far from progress.
You can send a message in RTTY 60WPM  just as effective in just a LITTLE more time.

.... it is completely unnecessary

This has more to do with signal quality than having to operate the latest digital fad or the newest ricebox.  In other words, a nice stable signal, no hum (ahh, have I been guilty of that one?!), no FMing, no clip leads on your xmitter (STEVE!!), tune up into a dummy load rather than into a QSO, etc.

What's funny is that by operating the latest crap ricebox many amateurs are violating this.  Synthesized VFOs that emit noise, crappy receivers that produce artifacts from strong nearby signals (and the ops getting blamed for dirty signals while the problem lies with the receiver), digital stations that automatically fire up on an exisitng QSO, and those oh-so-gentlemanly CW ops that fire up consistently on existing AM QSOs.

73 John

The AM community is progressive, Pete by regularly and substantially contributing to activity on HF.
You may not think that's a "contribution," but by being present on the bands and actually doing radio things we are perpetuating the hobbyist nature of the service. No one can apply a comparitive value to activity, all it has to do is be there.  It can be said that "internet radio" in all its forms  is only halfway radio. Then too, the vast unused areas that are reserved for CW can easily be seen as NOT contributing anything at all.

Well said, Paul.  Just because one is running vintage equipment doesn't mean someone isn't "progressive" within the meaning of the amateur's code.  Anyone who's removed the clipper in a Valiant, done work to stabilize an old VFO, or strives for a quality signal is certainly progressive.

And that describes 99% of the AM community.

73 John

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Where does this happen??...

7290Khz Sunday morning  9:15 AM est
3825Khz Sunday evening  8:30 pm
1930Khz Monday evening @10:00PM

shall I continue Glenn ?

The W9 and his buddies who used to like to fire up around 3882 every frigging night.

And ur right John.

The problems come from a few who have a axe to grind. Should the FCC act positively
on 11305 there will be more room to get away from these guys. Coupled with some help with enforcment from Riley on the constant/repeat offenders it could be a nice place to visit !!

The thing that gets me, among people opposed to removing mandatory reservations for certain modes, is that they feel others will run rampant over the areas that are now protected.  It strikes me as a classic case of the haves versus the have nots -- the "haves" enjoy this vast, open meadow to graze about placidly, while the rest of us with an equal claim to spectrum are slugging it out for a little place to operate.

At a minimum the protected sub-bands need to be scaled back to more closely match levels of operating, and our Petition, RM-11305, proposes to allow these frequencies to be free for all to use within today's rules against interference.

Is that so bad ?

Paul,--you just "admitted" it will be a "free for all" , in your statement above.
As far as it being "bad"?--I guess it would depend on your "perspective",--to
myself(and others)--this "free for all" could and will lead to "chaos", and may
the "biggest strapper win".--true "spirit" of ham radio?--not in my book.
   
                                      73, K1MVP

P.S, And how about all the "new" no code "generals" and "extras" when the license
       restrictions are lifted and the bands are now "overpopulated" with the new
       hams,--more "chaos",--and the need for even "more big power",--looks
       like a recipe for "disaster' and a method to "self destruct" ham radio, IMO.
       Maybe thats what the FCC would like, and it would then give them an excuse
       to really "write the service off" , again only my opinion.
   
P.P.S, as far as "free", or "freedom",--my pappy always told me there is no such
         thing as a "free lunch", and the same applies to HR,IMO.
                   

Rene, there's nothing to "admit," since vacant frequencies should  be free for all to use.

How rude and self-centered it is of anyone to think that they have a reserved range far in excess of demonstrated need, yet it is somehow their property for only the limited use they believe it should enjoy. If they're not using it, that spot or that chunk of the dial should be considered open for others to use.

I lump them in the same category as anyone who claims they "own" a specific frequency, and that problem is addressed in the Petition I helped write.

It's nice to coordinate as a way to minimize the chance for conflict between incompatible modes, but when friction is not likely, as when large portions of spectrum are unpopulated, we should be able to decide for ourselves if a given frequency can support a QSO of whatever denomination without interfering with others.

As for your forecast of dramatic growth to follow any possible relaxed licensing standards, I don't see that happening to the extent you do.  It's my view that the issue of license difficulty has been overplayed as an inhibiting factor, and that if there's a further watering-down, it won't spike the number of new licensees on HF.

I think that is partially the point.  More hams = more need to populate underutilized spectrum.

I find it somewhat disturbing that you find no-code licensees as somehow inferior.  Code is an operating mode, no more, no less, enjoyable to many but a PITA to some.  To paint new hams in an unflattering light (ie "generals", as if they are not true general class licensees) is contrary to the spirit of ham radio.  As we discussed in the "will ham radio survive" thread, embracing newcomers no matter what their background is the key to the hobby's survival.  Giving them the cold shoulder because they were once CBers or because they have no interest in CW is definitely counterproductive.

If the FCC no longer will require them to pass a code test, why is this their fault? 

73 John

John I would like to extend your line of thought to include people who check in on AM with rigs other than the traditional, plate-modulated, heavy metal transmitters.

To consider as inferior a contemporary transceiver, a MOSFET-based rig, or a carbon-mic transmitter  is just as rude as patronizing a newly-upgraded fellow for his lack of experience, or to look down on anyone else who fails to match some sort of standard expectation.

We don't live in an ideal world where everyone plays nice, but those initial impressions make all the difference when someone comes across an AM QSO and wants to say hello.

Come on John, you know as well as I do, these are not "CW Operators" these are slopbucket operators using CW to create malicious interference.  ::)

What possible reason besides generating malicious interference would a CW operator have for operating in the phone band when they have plenty of room to operate where phone isn't permitted?  ???

.....Reality check.... You guys know darn well these are SSB op's that have it in for AM'ers...

Glenn,
It never occured to me to use modes other than AM to create malicious interference.
I'm going to have to think about this.

Paul/VJB

John,
I will try to be brief, as I am tired of trying to "defend" my position on these issues.
As you may or may not know,--I have been "fighting" this "battle" for over two
years now,as Paul already knows,--what with the license "restructuring" proposals
presented before the FCC back in April of 2004.

Paul also knows,--I had "grave" concerns about ham radio back then, and it
seemed to me very few hams(back then) cared about these "new" license proposals,
as most seemed to feel it would not matter, or they thought it would be "good"
to "open the floodgates" to let the masses in(as the ARRL proposed).

Now at this "eleventh" hour, with these bandwidth proposals, it seems that some
are now in a "dither" or "panic" mode to file in hopes that the FCC will adopt their
petition.

Lets face it,--the FCC does not usually "move" very fast on any issue unless it is in
their interest, and IF they do, it probably will be in their interest.

As I mentioned before,--I really believe that the FCC is headed in the "de-regulation"
direction, as they just do not have the "resourses" to monitor and/ or enforce
a bunch of "rules", be they bandwidth or license violations, etc, etc.

This will in the "long run" IMO, lead to more "confusion" on the bands and thus
I think HR will just be a "glorified CB" with many appliance operators on the bands.

Also John, in reference to your statement about feeling that I think no-code
operators are "inferior"--I never said that,--I know many low code or no code hams
are excellent technicians, BUT I do feel that in doing away with the cw requirement,
even for extras, we are losing a  great "tradition" that has been part of HR for many
years.--much like if we were to lose AM(which some people would like to do away with)
as they could "care less" about tradition in this great hobby of ours.(i.e. digital elitists).

As Paul knows, I do have some strong feelings on these license issues, and you
can read my comments to the FCC back in April of 2004, on the EFCS website by
"retreiving" my comments under my callsign,--K1MVP(Ref RM-10867,RM-10868, RM-10870)

In closing, as I have told Paul in the past, my predictions about HR going downhill may be
wrong,--and I hope they are, as I still do enjoy an occasional AM QSO along with cw.
                                            
                                        73, Rene, K1MVP

P.S,  sorry I was not as "brief as was hoping to be.(rant over)

As one who was involved with the discussion of 11305, I will make a few comments.

I don't know if PG actually read my comments before he posted, but whether he did or not (and Phil is no dummy, I would imagine he did,) he clearly missed an important statement I made. 

First off, I am, as most of you know, not a member of your AM community.  I come to amfone.net to keep abreast of boat anchor goings on and because even though I don't have any of the old stuff nor do I use the mode, I learn from you.  And for that I am grateful.  I am a CW operator.  My brother has been pushing me to get on the digital modes and I just can't get reinterested.  And I most certainly have no interest in getting on SSB.  However, if I did end  up with another Apache or some such, even a DX60, I would check in with you folks.  As it stands now, my Kenwood with 25w of RBM (rice box modulation) isn't going to do the job.

So to hear Phil talk, I must be one of those anti AM/SSB folks who likes my free space in the low end of the band.  Right?  No.  If you go back and read my comment to FCC carefully on 11305 and 11306, you'll see that I state clearly that the phone bands need to be expanded.  To deny the obvious is just stupid.  The phone bands are over crowded enough to obviously need expansion, and on bands like 80, 20 and 15 at least, there's plenty of room to do just that.  40 is a small band to begin with so I don't see much room, though I don't spend much time above 7100, so I can't say for sure. 

I even admit I see no reason why CW should be permitted in the phone band.  Makes no sense to me.  I'm sure not interested in working  CW on 3800 (for example.)  Yes, I did that 30 years ago, but times were different.  It was acceptable for a CW station to check in with the phone guys if he didn't have a phone rig.  That is no longer acceptable and will be even less so afte rthe no-code HF becomes a reality.

Phil's point about even Cuba trusting their hams with the freedom to have no mode restricted subbands is just lunacy.  "Freedom" and "Cuba" in the same sentence just isn't logical.  I will agree however that the government there finds their hams trustworthy.  Those hams wouldn't have ham tickets and stations if they hadn't been found to be "trustworthy" by the commisars.  In politburo-speak yes, I'm sure those guys are "trustworthy."  And I'm sure any violations of the radio laws there result in more than a Rileyesque nastygram too.

This will be my last post on the subject of 11305.  Each of us is entilted to his/her opinion. Phil and JN's opinions are as valid as mine and nobody knows what FCC will decide.  And when they do decide, we'll all deal with it.

You do that Paul!

Ditto for me...

Ditto for me also,--think am getting signs of "battle fatigue" on these issues.
What "will be will be",--have many other things to look after here at home.

                                       73, Rene, K1MVP

Personally, I had hoped the ARRL would have kept their word and developed the bandplan to go with the petition.  There was opportunity to involve many people in the process.  But the Digital Elite ramrodded it through.  One of the principles confided early on that they were sure they had the votes and they wanted to get their petition before the FCC first.

Paul et al beat them to the punch.  I know enough about Paul to know the CTT folks did not have alterior motives.  Personally, I could never understand the compelling reason for their petition as to why AMateurs would want it.  But they sure had a right to try. Although I am concerned about the "free for all" (meaning donnybrook) that HF would become, I am most concerned about unintended result of allowing wideband digital signals on HF.  Believe me, folks will be on HF with 200kHZ wide signals trying to get an Internet type connection withn days of the rules taking effect.

Just as I am confused as to why the blind spot on "amateur good behavior" from the CTT group, I am just as confused about the Digital Elite attitude that they are entitled to run wideband data on HF even if their ONE session keeps 1000 SSB stations off the air.  I thought a compromise that would set aside 50kHz for them segregated from CW and SSB/AM would allow experimentation and meet all needs.  They don't want that because 50kHz isn't enough.  You talk to the hardcore Winlink folks and you understand pretty quick that they want it ALL.

That is why it is important to defeat both proposals.  I also agree that with 3 years of wrangling over the restructuring, the ARRL's action filing this was inexcusable for the turmoil it keeps us all in. My guess is that if the FCC wants bandwidth bandplanning we'll see a NPRM and they'll throw something up to see if it flies.  With ambigious comments like "I am against the robots on 20 meters", the skewed logic of the FCC might see this as "most of the ARRL petition is good, if we just take out that part". 

Whatever happens, at this point we're up for more years of infighting because of the lack of ARRL leadership and concensus building.