AM Under Attack? - WA3VJB

Brian Carling bcarling at CFL.RR.COM
Fri Jun 20 22:23:51 EDT 2003

Some comments just arrived from WA3VJB:

Hey Bry,

Sorry to have to write on an unpleasant matter, but
I didn't write the headline that "Doc" chose to respond to
with the harsh language he has used on the Boatanchors reflector.

(Note  - *I* wrote the subject line - AF4K)

Anyone can see from the body of what you posted that I never put
the activity of AM high up in the story or the headline, and
took care to note that the Petitioners themselves acknowledged
AM has not caused the sort of interference problems forming
the basis of their complaint.

There are, as I reported, many people who will question
the imposition of mandatory bandwidth limitations of any
sort, regardless of the mode they would affect.
Part of it is the enforcement challenge, another part is
the value judgment that would consequently have to be placed
among ham radio activities that consume spectrum.

Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the spectrum
consumed on a contest weekend triggers a
Petition for Rulemaking among people not
interested in contests, and feel they face unreasonable
interference in trying to operate?

Perhaps more to the point, should our hobby create ANY
rigid, full-time rule constraining an activity without regard
to those times when uncongested conditions might otherwise
allow that activity to flourish?

I'd appreciate your posting this follow up from me,
since I'm not presently a subscriber.

Thanks and regards,


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

Subscription control -
Archives -

More information about the Boatanchors mailing list