[Boatanchors] ALERT: AM Under Attack - WA3VJB

Brian Carling bcarling at CFL.RR.COM
Sat Jun 21 07:07:35 EDT 2003

On 20 Jun 2003 at 16:25, 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.

It's like the old song though Doc - you got to accenbtuate the positive and
minimize the negative element which accounts for but a TINY, noisy minority. We
add to their fire by putting them center stage in my opinion.

> 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.

So why did they add ANYTHING if it is as bad as you say he said it is?

> 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.

They did NOT cite that but rather cited the NTIA's needs.
Kindergarten addition? I would call it illogical subtractional analysis to say that that
was a factor unless it is so stated,
which, unless I am mistaken it was not.

> (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.)

I guess I am blind to all of this since I operate 75% CW and digital modes, with the
remainder evenly split between SSB, FM and some occasional AM.

> 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.

But you said earlier that 5.8kHz was a good idea!

> 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.

Again you have change dthe argument mid-stream. Oh well. I give up.
I don't want to digress the thred any further from it's original theme.

> Once again that would be due to
> our own resistance to responsible behavior.

You talk as though we are all to blame, all of us bad operators and all have bad
breath(!) My experience of hams has been entirely otherwise.


AF4K, Bry

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

Subscription control - http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.asp?list=BOATANCHORS
Archives - http://interactive.tempe.gov/archives/BOATANCHORS.html

More information about the Boatanchors mailing list