ARRL Petition has already brought up the issue of outlawing AM

[k4kyv]

Proceeding: RM-11306     Type Code: CO
Date Received/Adopted: 01/10/06    Date Released/Denied:
Document Type: COMMENT    Total Pages: 1
File Number/Community:    DA/FCC Number:
Filed on Behalf of: Richard L. Tannehill
Filed By:
Attorney/Author Name:    Document Date:
Complete Mailing Address:
5410 W. diana Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85302 -4870
Brief Comment

I agree with the ARRL petition for regulation by bandwidth, and support it, with one major exception.
The League claims that their plan does not favor one mode over another. Not true. It favors AM-DSB
operators. It would allow for 9 KHz AM modulation, in bands which otherwise are limited to 3.5 KHz.
These include the lower HF bands, which are quite crowded at times. The solution is simply to
restrict AM-DSB to above 28.5 MHz. (10 meters & above) Amateurs and the league have been
upset in the past over wide-SSB modulation, meant to improve audio quality. AM is no different from
this. It is an old modulation that adds nothing to advancing the technological art, and should be
confined to bands where there is ample spectrum available.

Richard L. Tannehill P.E. - W7RT

ARRL Life Member
(45-years amateur licensed)rief Comment

[K1MVP]

Don,

I had a "gut feeling" that this was coming, by many who could "care less"
about AM, and seeking to "push" the digital agenda.
My next question,--would be, what is this "am exception",--a way to be
able to "outlaw" AM if the pressure gets too much?
This year will prove real interesting, as to how the FCC views amateur radio,
IMO.
                                      73, K1MVP
 
     

[KA8WTK]

W7RT should be carefull. If AM adds "nothing to the art" becasue the modulation form is old, the same logic could be applied to outlawing CW. It is even older!

[Glenn NY4NC]

two words........ DUMB ASS

It is an old modulation that adds nothing to advancing the technological art, and should be
confined to bands where there is ample spectrum available.

[W2VW]

The day AM is outlawed will be the same day ssb is outlawed.

[John Holotko]

The day AM is outlawed will be the same day ssb is outlawed.

Exactly

[WD8BIL]

The day AM is outlawed will be the ............

.... the day I become an outlaw !!

[wb1aij]

Aaaarrrrggghhhh matey. Got my eyepatch & parrot ready.

[WA3VJB]

Comment filed on the FCC page in favor of 11306.

Here is a gentleman who misunderstands the historic leadership of the AM community in volunteering to coordinate our QSOs in a given area to minimize friction with other modes and activities. The ARRL does not do the allowing. He fails to realize that this offer to coordinate was supposed to generate reciprocal respect from users of incompatible modes.

In the filing, he says:

"The ARRL bandwidth proposal appears workable with one exception, allowing double sideband AM 9kHz. SSB was created to conserve spectrum and allow more stations to operate in a given bandwidth. AM stations were allowed to operate in certain segments of each band in accordance with the ARRL voluntary band plan to reduce destructive interference to SSB stations. In recent years some of these AM stations have chosen to violate the band plan and operate anywhere in the phone bands, creating harmful interference to SSB operations (this is particularly evident on the 80 meter band). If the FCC is to allow 9 kHz for these stations, rules should be implemented to restrict these stations to a 4.5 kHz bandwidth (SSB AM) if they do not abide by the ARRL band plan."

W4VR/1  Extra, ex K1YIW
Ron Grandmaison
1913 Sly Brook Rd.
Eagle Lake, ME 04739

Surprisingly, old Ron has a broadcast engineering background (you would think he would have an appreciation for AM).

According to his profile on QRZ.com: (as of 2005-12-18)

Technical operations, WAGM-TV, Presque Isle ME, 1967-68.

Technical operations (studying for EE), WMAL-TV, Washington DC, 1968-69.

Lab technician (studying for EE), NIH Cancer Institute - Toxicology, Bethesda MD, 1969-71.

Radio/TV Consulting Engineer, Jansky and Bailey Broadcast Consultants, Washington DC, 1971-80.

Senior Engineer, CBS Television Network - Engineering and Development, New York NY, 1980-84.

Radio/TV Consulting Engineer (private practice), Fairfax VA, 1984-87.

Senior Electronics Engineer, US Coast Guard Spectrum Management, Washington DC, 1987-1999.

Retired Civil Service, 1999.

Licensed Professional Engineer: Maine, Virginia.

Favorite pastimes: fishing, hunting, and boating.

[K1JJ]

" If the FCC is to allow 9 kHz for these stations, rules should be implemented to restrict these stations to a 4.5 kHz bandwidth (SSB AM) if they do not abide by the ARRL band plan."


If that rule requiring one sideband AM with carrier, ever became law, it would obsolete every plate modulated, screen modulated, PDM, class E, or any high level AM rig ever built.  The only "reasonable" way to generate a [ONE] single sideband full carrier AM signal is with a low level phasing or balanced modulator using a filter in the I.F.   It could probably be done as a high level phasing scheme, but again, the AM rigs we now all love are toast.  [sigh]

The only other way to do 4.5 kc total AM bandwidth with these old rigs is with + - 2.25 kc DSB audio...  [cough - gag]

Just wanted to bring this point up in case this dangerous idea ever gained momentum.

T

[Glenn NY4NC]

Another guy who is short a few noodles in his pasta bowl

You can't make this stuff up!... oh, wait..... he just did. 

AM stations were allowed to operate in certain segments of each band in accordance with the ARRL voluntary band plan to reduce destructive interference to SSB stations. In recent years some of these AM stations have chosen to violate the band plan and operate anywhere in the phone bands, creating harmful interference to SSB operations

[WA1HZK]

Hey Gary
Can you do a message to every member and get them to post their comments? We need overwelming disaproval for this stupid plan or we've had it.
Keith

[John Holotko]

It'snot at all surprising that  the AM-Haters would use their comments on thse proposal as a sounding board to cry for the elimination, or severe restriction, of AM. Not surprisingly it didn't  take very long.

[W1RKW]

My proposal, Yes I know it's extreme.
Slobbuckteers should be limited to 1w PEP and 0.5khz bandwidth when near any AM window.  They never seem to know where their sidebands are and cause QRM. 

And I forgot to mention the AM window should be changeed to the AM Gate and be widened 400KC's thus making a  SSB window or an SSB slit. 

Wishful thinking, I know...

But in all seriousness, the boneheads that are proposing limiting AM or eliminating AM should be very careful in chosing their reasons why AM should be eliminated or restricted. If they use the bandwidth and new technologies approach I think they can be just as vulnerable to losing their slopbucket privleges too.  The FCC could simply tell us all to go digital as it's a new an up and coming technology.

Is it me but has anyone else noticed an ever increasing amount of AM activitiy over the last year or so on 75 and 160.  I'm noticing alot of new callsigns.  That's cool!

[K1MVP]

My question,--would be, with these bandwidth "proposals" now before the FCC,
AND the "restructuring" proposals,--all contraversal, how is the FCC going to view
the big picture?

How can the FCC or ARRL possibly know what impact all these changes will/or
would have on each other?
The impact of of "deregulation" on the bandwidth issues, versus the impact
of doing away with the cw requirement, to get the #`s up, and thousands
more on the HF frequencies?

I would think,--rather than "tackle" everything at the same time,--maybe the
issue of license restructuring should be resolved first, and see where that leads.

Maybe,--just maybe, the bandwidth proposals should have been "held back"
until the license restructuring issue was/ or is "resolved".
With the present approach,--one wonders what will come out in the "end",
--a "cornucopia" of who knows what?

                                      73, K1MVP
 
  

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

Maybe,--just maybe, the bandwidth proposals should have been "held back"
until the license restructuring issue was/ or is "resolved".
With the present approach,--one wonders what will come out in the "end",
--a "cornucopia" of who knows what?

                                      73, K1MVP 

To be honest, I think they might be concerned by the growing numbers on AM and figured it was now or never. The more people who discover it, try it, and like it, the more resistance later. Just a SWAG on my part...

Hope the year is treating you well so far, Rene 

[John Holotko]

It'snot at all surprising that  the AM-Haters would use their comments on thse proposal as a sounding board to cry for the elimination, or severe restriction, of AM. Not surprisingly it didn't  take very long.

Meanwhile, let's clean up our act on 75 meters and not give these people more ammunition to use against us. Cut out the on-air belching and farting, the CB-type antics, and all the other stuff that gives outsiders a bad impression of us. For those who feel they MUST do those things on the air in AM mode, stick to 27 MHz.

Yes, I agree. We need to set a good example of ourselves. However, I think most of  the AM'ers pretty much do that already. many of the most sensible, technical, informative conversations I hear on 75 meters come into my receiver on AM. I also think there is room for a little silliness, joking and carrying on from time to time. But ultimately yes, i do agree, especially at a time like this it is important to  give a good impression regarding operating practices.

With regards to the AM-Haters I notice two popular trends. There are the AM-Haters who want AM banned and wiped off the ham bands altogether. Then you have the haters who want AM relegated to some far off corner of 10 meters, like up somewhere between 29.0 and 29.0 mc. Their rationale being that our "antiquated wide mode" will cause less problems on such an uncrowded part of a relatively uncrowded band. Of course this would mean that AM is virtually useless as a communications mode except for local groundwave communications and those times when the band is open. In that case why not then just  slide down to 27 mhz, choose a handle and start shouting "how about it out there". Ideally this would be the AM-Haters  dream come true.  One thing you'll never hear from any of the am-haters is how come it is okay for a ssb coversation to start right on top of an AM qso. I hear it happen all the time and it's happened to me almost everytime I've been on 75. The haters love to talk about AM interfering with other modes. But somehow it'sokay to interfere with AM.Why is that ?

[K1JJ]

" thus making a  SSB window or an SSB slit "

A sideband SLIT!  uhhahaha      I love it! 

T

[WA1GFZ]

Hey did you see Phil's post.

people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

A little is funny but most times I qsy off 75 when company visits the shack.

Everybody knows how to burp and fart and it is not coming up for gold metal in Italy
the next few weeks.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

The negative effects of on-air behavior by AMers are debatable. Just consider: If they were so objectionable, we wouldn't see the immense growth of AM. Further, in reading the anti-AM comments, not one mentioned on-air behavior. Their arguments centered around bandwidth and antiquity. Seems this other stuff is a red herring.

[W1UX]

I filed these comments with the FCC today on RM-11306.

I am filing comments against RM-11306.

Regulating the current amateur frequencies by bandwidth vs. mode is bound to create additional complications and add layers of confusing and obfuscatory regulations to an already confused situation.

How this would be enforced is really beyond comprehension, when the Commission has truly important and serious matters to deal with.
 
Please keep in mind that the general direction in amateur radio has been towards
de-regulation.

The comments particularly filed by Ron Grandmaison, W4VR, are especially
counterproductive and short sighted, since AM is a technical proving ground for the involved amateurs, who by the nature of the beast develop some real knowledge of the circuitry and form a theoretical and empirical base for working with circuitry and applying common sense engineering practice.

SSB operation on the other hand is overwhelmingly produced, without question, by “appliance operators” who often have little understanding of the transceivers they purchase, and frequently exhibit poor operating practice, generating broad and distorted signals. Many memorize the mostly irrelevant “question base” on the FCC exams, which does not help them gain a true understanding of operating in the HF spectrum. A minority of amateurs in general exhibit a really competent technical understanding which permits them to design, build, and operate anything from radios to antennas; this in an amateur universe where it is now common to even purchase wire antennas from “manufacturers”!

Most AM operators on the other hand use their interest as a training ground to learn and better their understanding of the art and science of radio. The nature of AM produces broader signals, just as SSB produces broader signals than CW. Spectrum space, and crowding in as many narrowband signals as possible, and policing such a situation on top of it, is not realistic.

Let the AM’ers develop their knowledge and provide a genuine technical base for the amateur community, and please do not accept the premise of RM-11306 as filed.

 Respectfully submitted,

Yves A. Feder
W1UX
Licensed since 1953
Operating all modes on the HF bands

[K1JJ]

The negative effects of on-air behavior by AMers is debatable. Just consider: If they were so objectionable, we wouldn't see the immense growth of AM. Further, in reading the anti-AM comments, not one mentioned on-air behavior. There arguments centered around bandwidth and antiquity. Seems this other stuff is a red herring.

I agree.

I'd say more guys drop out of ham radio in general due to boredoom than from QSOs going crazy and guys laughing themselves into a stupor....  Fun, laughter and acting crazy once in awhile attracts more newcomers [and old timers] than anything else.  

In fact, I see a direct relationship between laughter and on-the-air activity. Sometimes the activity gets slow, boring and thin.... or serious and technical... and other times it gets lively, nuts and they come outa the woodwork in droves.  Mixing it up is the key.  There's a place for everyone on AM.

T

[K1JJ]

I filed these comments with the FCC today on RM-11306.
Yves A. Feder
W1UX
Licensed since 1953
Operating all modes on the HF bands

What he said!  Good job, AL "AL" (Al) Yves!

The man can "right" !

T

[W3NP]

This is what I filed earlier this evening.


Dear Sirs:

I am firmly opposed to RM-11306.

I believe that the average amateur operator lacks the skill and equipment to determine compliance with the proposed change.

The majority of the non-phone portions of the bands are underused at present and continue to be more under-used as time passes. I have been a ham for 46 years and have personally witnessed the non-phone sub-bands go from a beehive of activity to large portions of vacant spectrum.

If anything, I am of the opinion that the sub-bands should be eliminated and that mode usage of the 160 meter band be the pattern for all of the HF bands. The CW and digital modes generally use the lower portion of that band and phone operations occur in the upper portion. This, I believe is a much more effective way to allow the activity level of any of the modes to “self-level” if you will. I believe that the simpler the band plan is, the easier it will be for hams to self police and not rely on the limited resources of FCC to shoulder the burden to assure that a complicated division of spectrum is adhered to.

In closing, I think that this proposal is totally unnecessary and not worthy of consideration.

Respectfully submitted,
David Humbertson – W3NP

[ve6pg]

...I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE,..HOW DOES THE FCC/ARRL PLAN TO STOP US RENEGADE CANADIANS,FROM USING OUR MODES/BANDWIDTHS?..WE HAMS IN CANADA HAVE DIFFERENT REGS,NONE OF THIS NONSENSE OF BAND PLANS,ETC..I CAN OPERATE ANY MODE,ANY WHERE I CHOOSE,WITHIN THE HAM BANDS....GRAB A MAP...THERE ISNT A STRAIGHT LINE WITH OUR BORDER..DETROIT IS NORTH OF WINDSOR ONTARIO...ALOT OF EAST COAST AM OPERATORS ARE EAST OF ME,NOT SOUTH.  MY POINT BEING,DOES THE FCC/ARRL PLAN TO PUT AN "RF CURTAIN" AROUND THE U.S.,TO STOP OPERATORS FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES SIGNALS FROM REACHING THE U.S.?...IT SEEMS TO ME,THAT IN GERMANY DURING THE 30's AND 40's,IT WAS ILLEGAL TO LISTEN TO FOREIGN BROADCASTS.... I SEE NO DIFFERENCE HERE...TIM...SK..