League dumps AM threat

[WA3VJB]

The ARRL, a small, non-profit publishing company in Newington Connecticut, has abandoned a threat to impose a system of bandwidth segregation on the various modes and activities on HF below 10 meters.

In an email to the club's volunteer administrators, Dave Sumner, the company's highest-paid, unelected staffer, seems to have acknowledged the overwhelming opposition arrayed against his group's plan the past several years.

The threat to AM was specific and unquestionable -- it would have imposed the first-ever, numerical constraints on bandwidth without providing a means for licensees to ensure compliance and ward off unwarranted complaints from those who do not participate in this mode and activity.

The scheme would also have characterized AM as a "footnote" that otherwise would not be in compliance with their misguided system of bandwidth segregation.

Sumner wrote, in part,

Regulation by bandwidth rather than by mode of emission remains controversial below 28 MHz because of perceived potential impact on established operating patterns, so these proposals were removed from the list with one narrow exception.

Those who subscribe to the ARRL can pursue the full text, which contains several insults and additional patronizing language to those of us who dared to question the scheme their group tried to slip through.

Keywords:
--And for the truly paranoid
--don't know all the facts
--making their complaints and threats
--have other motives

It is important to note that the club continues to try to sneak through the small, remaining portion of their scheme that opponents had not, until now, chosen to challenge.

Fresh opposition remarks about the fraction the League continues to push are now being filed and accepted on the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System.

The latest challenges join the carefully considered, well-reasoned arguments that gave the ARRL a severe spanking and refuted that group's earlier threat to AM that they now have abandoned.

This appears to be the system of feedback the group in Newington prefers.

[W2VW]

Those who subscribe to the ARRL can pursue the full text, which contains several insults and additional patronizing language to those of us who dared to question the scheme their group tried to slip through.

You mean those whose current subscriptions have not run out.
I used my ARRL membership money instead this year to buy extra kitty litter. The cat enjoys the more frequent litter box changes. His contributions to ham radio are of more value than the group in Newington. My cat has never sailed on a yaght though.

[AG4YO]

Kudos to you Paul and Skip Teller for your great work on this.  Hopefully my little part in this was helpful as well.  Albert Schram  W3MIV and I were the first to comment on the Inmay letter and we stirred up some limited support for comments. But things really did not take off until Paul asked me to contact Skip.  When they both got involved and with Skip and Paul putting together a "News" item for QRZ.COM and here, it really took off! I am sure that this is in no small part due to the AMers here.

By the time the ARRL responded with their ERRATUM on 3/22, there were already over 250 comments and we're up to over 400 now I believe.  Great work, Paul! 
 


 

[WA3VJB]

Thanks Charlie, but all I did was ferret out the information they were hoping no one would see. It took them a month to put anything in the "news" section of their website, and then, only after a few thousand hits on other sites carrying the story of their unpublished meeting in mid-February. But by now it is far too late for effective information control on their part.

You did quite a lot to help coalesce the unrest that was stirred up by the attorney's unpublished meeting with FCC officials. A tip of the hat to the input SPAR offered as well. That shaped what we publicly presented to encourage a response from the greater Amateur community.

As we discussed, there is still the option of filing additional regulatory briefs with the FCC to try to seal the fate of this specific Petition from the ARRL, and perhaps to curtail future threats from that club with methods of accountability after the fact, and pre-emptive strikes that address their group's credentials.

I also got a nice note from a former New England area AMer, Warren, who back then was WA1GUD. He's now a television reporter in south Florida. You should look him up.
------

--- Warren Elly  wrote:

> CC: Southeastern AM Radio Club
> <samrc@mail.wdavis.net>
> From: Warren Elly <w1gud@t--.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [samrc] League dumps threat against AM
> Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:39:46 -0400
> To: VJB
>
> Paul,
>    I believe you have hit it on the knuckle head.
>    There was a terrific effort by the AM Community on
> many fronts, from 
> the sublime to the frontal attack.
> For example, I think we all owe the group that put
> the Valiant II 
> station on the air at W1AW a beer. It said a lot
> about the 
> inconvenient truth of the matter from the League's
> point of view - 
> that AM is a player.
>     Mr. Sumner said as much in his recent communique
> from Newington.
>
> 73, Warren W1GUD
>
> PS- What a great signal down in Florida this season
> Paul !
>
> On Mar 24, 2007, at 11:30 AM, VJB wrote:

[WA3VJB]

Reaction continues to come in. This is a good opportunity to express appreciation for those who last year took the time to file comments to the FCC opposing what the group in Newington tried to do. All that's left now is to make sure they don't utter another "ex-parte" and try to revive portions they've been warned not to pursue. EP Swynar
Sun Mar 25 08:10:46 EST 2007

What the heck is going on with our neighbours south of the 49th
Parallel...?!

You've seemingly got a licensing body populated by little-more than
did-interested, beaurocratic, career-oriented mandarins, headed-up by
politically correct toadies of big money & big bu$ine$$...your largest lobby
group seems to be grossly ineffective of late in its ability to grab the ear
of the FCC to make it listen, because it's apparently too distracted by its
own agenda & internal empire building...

I am NOT attempting to condemn you good folks, or put you down, or set up
our system here in Canada by comparison as some sort of a ",,,beacon of
enlightenment" --- nothing like that at all! But man-o-man, I do feel for
you guys.

It's like you're all alone in a cruel world that simply continues to change
for the worst. Obviously politics & Ham radio do NOT mix...on ANY level. I
only hope things might change for you guys soon, because you certainly do
deserve better than what you've been getting for the past several years,
IMHO...

~73~ Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ

[WA3VJB]

Bry Carling
Sun Mar 25 06:51:13 EST 2007

Thanks, Paul - excellent commentary from WA3VJB...

The threat to operators of old tube AM and CW rigs is
somewhat diminished.

To expand and explain slightly - the part they DO want to keep...
They now propose to destroy only ten meters, perhaps figuring
that since there has been a long sunspot minimum, no one
will be paying attention...

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1

[WA3VJB]

Mike Sawyer
Sat Mar 24 18:13:34 EST 2007

Paul,
    Thanks for blowing the whistle on this bunch of gangsters from
Newington. I outright refuse to support anything that the (be)League(d) does
anymore. Ed Hare was the only exception and he got trounced by the
'powers-that-be' that reign over the ARRgghhL. I've been reading up on the
threads at eham.com and qrz.com,  and there seems to be quite a number that
believe this is the last straw with the (be)League(d).
Mod-U-Lator,
Mike(y)
W3SLK

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Obviously politics & Ham radio do NOT mix...on ANY level.

LOL. This dude doesn't know history. Ham radio and politics have ALWAYS mixed. Politics is one big reason the ARRL was created. What does he think all the World Radio Conferences over the years were? A technical get together. NOT. Politics baby. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[W3SLK]

Once again the constant pounding of RM-11306 is demonstrative that the (be)League(d) is going out of its way to alienate itself from what members its still has remaining. Alot of people will ask, "When will they learn?" They won't until the organization has been run into the ground, which is where it is going. All one needs to do is look at the other (non-AM)ham BB's to see how much discontent this has fermented with the ARRgghhL. The whole organization needs a complete enema and people installed that have the hobby at heart and not trying to push one agenda or another. I know you can't please everyone, but these characters are pleasing no one.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

I went to a garden party to reminisce with my old friends,
A chance to share old memories and play our songs again,
When I got to the garden party, they all knew my name,
No one recognized me, I didn't look the same.

But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well.
You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Bry Carling
Sun Mar 25 06:51:13 EST 2007

Thanks, Paul - excellent commentary from WA3VJB...

The threat to operators of old tube AM and CW rigs is
somewhat diminished.

To expand and explain slightly - the part they DO want to keep...
They now propose to destroy only ten meters, perhaps figuring
that since there has been a long sunspot minimum, no one
will be paying attention...

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/03/23/101/?nc=1

We operate AM generally from 29.0-29.2; how many of us operate with a transmitted bandwidth of 16 Khz; where is this destroying 10 meters?

Proposed:
Wavelength     Band           Max. Bandwidth  Standards
10 m        28.00-28.05 MHz      200 Hz
-do-        28.05-28.120 MHz     500 Hz
-do-        28.120-29.0 MHz       3 kHz              (5)
-do-        29.0-29.7 MHz          16 kHz
   
(5) The 3 kHz maximum bandwidth does not apply to double-sideband amplitude-modulated phone A3E emissions.
 

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

I think the question is how not where.

[k4kyv]

I scanned the comments on the FCC website this morning.  So far, about 500 have come in since the League released it memo in Feb.  I opened a random sample of about 25  comments, and EVERY SINGLE ONE was in opposition.

The proposed 10m bandwidth plan appears to effectively outlaw ESSB on that band, although it would still be legal on 160-15m.

The question is how the FCC would interpret necessary bandwidth versus occupied bandwidth.

[WD8BIL]

We operate AM generally from 29.0-29.2

During the last 10  meter cycle I had many AM qsos at or around 28.600 +.
Calling CQ in the 29 region was usually non-productive. Get down where the action is and many ssbers were more than happy to answer and join in. So because we operate "generally" somewhere doesn't mean we must accept someone trying to handcuff us away from anywhere we choose to operate.

how many of us operate with a transmitted bandwidth of 16 Khz

If you believe W8JI, most of us are 25Khz wide or better !! (course He fails to mention the
-55dbc part!)

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

W8JI shown to be irrational, illogical. He's been thoroughly discredited

here

http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php?topic=6668.0

and here

http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php?topic=8686.0

[Pete, WA2CWA]

We operate AM generally from 29.0-29.2

During the last 10  meter cycle I had many AM qsos at or around 28.600 +.
Calling CQ in the 29 region was usually non-productive. Get down where the action is and many ssbers were more than happy to answer and join in. So because we operate "generally" somewhere doesn't mean we must accept someone trying to handcuff us away from anywhere we choose to operate.

As I read their revised plan, I see no AM bandwidth restriction between 28.12 and 29 MHz.
-----------
Anyway, even with all the comments submitted and revisions, there's no way at this time to tell what the FCC might do going forward with the amateur bands if anything. As Steve said, "Ham radio and politics have ALWAYS mixed." The FCC has been on a "digital" kick for the last several years. Look at the digital TV actions that go into effect in 2009. Communication type services seem to be getting more and more channelized. They've also been pushing BPL relentlessly and the ARRL has been on them at every turn including a law suit filed against the FCC in January 2007.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the FCC files a NPRM that favors some of the bandwidth ideas put forward with some of the comments filed. Regardless of whose comments may actually be declared “having merit”, most likely the ARRL will feel the pain both from their members and non-members as being the initial cause. Having to deal with “damage control” may cause the ARRL to reallocate financial resources from the BPL side to maintaining stability to their own ship and thus allow the FCC the continue pushing their BPL agenda unabated.  The old saying, “don’t screw with a government agency” might very well apply here.

[k4kyv]

We operate AM generally from 29.0-29.2

During the last 10  meter cycle I had many AM qsos at or around 28.600 +.
Calling CQ in the 29 region was usually non-productive. Get down where the action is and many ssbers were more than happy to answer and join in. So because we operate "generally" somewhere doesn't mean we must accept someone trying to handcuff us away from anywhere we choose to operate.

I used to sometimes work AM on 28.3-28.5 mc/s.  So did Ashtabula Bill.  I was able to snag a little DX in that portion, although the DX stations were inevitably on SSB.

But the most fun of all was listening to the ill-informed, self-appointed radio cops try to break in the QSO to inform me that AM was "illegal" in that portion of the band!  I would sometimes respond by (diplomatically) informing them how ignorant they were, but most of the time I just ignored them and got a kick out of hearing the frustration in their voices.

In fact, Novices and Technicians are limited to SSB only, but Generals and above may use any form of "phone".  The SSB-only rule is an anachronism left over from the League's "Novice Enhancement" petition, an (unsuccessful) effort some 20 years ago to recruit a large number of newcomer hams.  The League proposed the SSB-only clause, reportedly to discourage CB'ers from getting an easily-obtained Novice ticket, and moving their CB operations to 10m using converted AM CB equipment.  Unfortunately, the FCC left that clause in the rules when they recently acted on phone band and Novice/Technician issues.  It serves no useful purpose and should be a moot point, since there never was any evidence that hoards of CB'ers were interested in getting ham licences and invading that frequency segment, and the FCC no longer issues easily-obtainable Novice tickets, so the only way the CB'er could gain access to that segment would be to pass the Technician exam.  Unfortunately, it prevents Technician licensees from legally modifying simple AM CB equipment as a low-cost way to get a first phone rig on the air.  But now with the code requirement gone, it should be just about as easy to get a full-fledged General as it would be for a Technician licence anyway.