[Boatanchors] ALERT: AM Under Attack - WA3VJB

[EDWIN J FORWOOD]

It was quite unnecessary for you to tell us that you have never held a
"Ticket".  That is quite apparent from your other remarks and your
attitude!
KØEJF

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:30:54 -0400 "L. M. Picard" <lmpicard at ATTCANADA.CA>
writes:
> 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
>
>

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