Some RM-11306 Information

[WA3VJB]

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.

[Glenn NY4NC]

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...

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

[WA3VJB]

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

[K1MVP]

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"

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 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)

[wa2zdy]

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.

[Glenn NY4NC]

You do that Paul!

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

[Glenn NY4NC]

Ditto for me...

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.

[K1MVP]

Ditto for me...

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.

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

[AG4YO]

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.