[Boatanchors] ALERT: AM Under Attack - WA3VJB

[Brian Carling]

Can't say that I agree with Doc here.

Outlawing all AM signals that are 6 kHz wide is preposterous.

To claim that AM is under attack is certainly NOT a falsehood.

To acknowledge divisiveness does not encourage it.

Shying away from the attacks only encourages more.

We are not as far away from BANNING HF AM and CW
as you may think, my friend!

Let's revisit this 20 years from now and se if you STILL think
VJB is crying wolf.

On the other hand you probably don't use HF AM.

I do occasionally and I like it! My AF67 and Ranger type rigs don't easily conform
to such absurd limitations as a 5.6 kHz bandwidth.

On 20 Jun 2003 at 9:28, Colburn wrote:

> > In a copy obtained for reporting on Newsline, QRZ.com, and
> > the specialty internet site www.amwindow.org, the petition asks for
> > a federally mandated bandwidth limit of 2.8 kilohertz for SSB, well
> > below the extended bandwidth needed for what has been called
> > enhanced audio.
> >
> > ***   Nonetheless, the petition asks the FCC to impose a
> > 5.6 kilohertz bandwith limitation on AM, with the restrictions on
> > phone transmissions to apply on all amateur HF allocations below
> > 28.8 megahertz.  ***
>
> This has nothing to do with AM being under attack.  The headline by
> WA3VJB is disinformation.
>
> AM would be granted 5.6KHz! SSB 2.8KHz.  If one cannot communicate on
> the crowded HF bands within those limits then perhaps one needs to be
> re-licensed to VHF-UHF-SHF-only status.  There is plenty of room up
> there for fat signals and experimentation of all sorts.
>
> It is one thing to question the precise bandwidth proposals (I'd
> prefer 6.0KHz for AM and 3.0 for SSB), it is another to hysterically
> declare an attack on AM and an effort to destroy experimentation.
> Rubbish.
>
> Based on my observations since the 60's with overcrowding, selfish and
> irresponsible conduct by many Hams on the busiest bands, and the
> increase in general disregard for laws of all sorts, let alone
> voluntary bandplan regs, this proposal appears to makes very good
> sense.
>
> Is it a sad day when Hams cannot coexist in a cooperative spirit?
> Yes. Is there a reasonable expectation they will in this case in the
> absence of a FCC mandate?  No.
>
> This is the very reason why the FCC didn't trust us with fuller access
> to 60 Meters -- we have proved on the other HF bands that we don't
> deserve their voluntary non-interference trust.
>
> We've made our bed and soon we will have to live in it, with bandwidth
> sidebars like a little child's bed.
>
> Once again the selfish minority has spoiled things for the majority.
>
> IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online
> Answer To Life's Important Questions.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/ELTolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~
> ->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Boatanchors-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

-----------------------------------------------------------
This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------

Subscription control - http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.asp?list=BOATANCHORS
To post - BOATANCHORS at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV
Archives - http://interactive.tempe.gov/archives/BOATANCHORS.html