[Boatanchors] ALERT: AM Under Attack - WA3VJB

[L. M. Picard]

I do not hold and have never held a "ticket".  One of the reasons is
that what is hear on the ham bands on the occasions when I scan them,
generally holds little interest.

My understanding is that some years ago the scarce radio spectrum was
carved up into commercial sectors and amateur sectors.   Amateurs were
initially allowed fairly broad scope but were eventually limited to what
they were allowed to do on the air.

My personal belief is that a fresh look should be had into what amateur
radio is all about and why amateurs should be given access to the radio
spectrum.   Now that everyone has a cell phone or a family service
radio, the justification of a backup communication system no longer
exists.   I doubt many young people get their feet wet in electronics
through building ham equipment any more.   On the other hand, the
 public cannot be happy with TVI and its variants, or the ham that makes
his florescent lights glow at night.

Much of the rag-chew activity would be better served by audio chat rooms
on the internet rather than over the air.   It is really not necessary
to broadcast information about armed service-related experiences in
various brothels around the world over international borders or stories
about one's personal struggles with gout.

I would like to grant people the possibility of one-way broadcasting of
a non-commercial nature or even the right to broadcast music if they
chose.

The current amateur service has evolved into a social outlet for a small
number of mainly aging males but serves any broader purpose less and
less.

If it is to survive, hams will have to agree to cough up more for their
tickets to pay for effective enforcement.

Colburn wrote:

>I have 40 years of direct knowledge that Hams have been at war on the
>air -- and there are thousands of posts, dozens of articles in Ham mags,
>and dozens of FCC citations to back me up.
>
>I know from Riley Hollingsworth's own lips (here in Tampa Bay at an ARRL
>Convention a couple of years ago) that the FCC is very troubled, and has
>been for long, with our inability to successfully self-regulate.  He has
>for several years warned that the FCC had its limits of tolerance and
>that they were reluctant to add any spectrum because of the problems on
>existing spectrum.
>
>One need merely be able to add at a kindergarten level to make the
>connection between their resistance to the ARRL's request for greater
>freedom on 60M and our history of bad conduct.  (Of course there were
>other factors, including the resistance of government and industry
>folks, but we needn't put our heads in the sand about our own
>culpability -- we are often our own worst enemies.)
>
>This latest proposal is right on the mark -- despite my philosophical
>resistance to government regs I must accept the reality of human nature
>-- though I will be recommending 3.0 and 6.0 KHz as more reasonable.
>
>If we cannot communicate SSB at 3.0KHz and AM at 6.0KHz the FCC may
>impose 100% type-accepted gear instead of trusting us to do the right
>thing with BA's and modified rigs.  Once again that would be due to our
>own resistance to responsible behavior.  I for one would hate that!
>
>73, doc kd4e
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>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
>
>
>
>

-----------------------------------------------------------
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