The neat thing is that in the hundreds of comments on this subject over the past few weeks, the ones with the anti-social attitude that are behind this latest boondoggle proposal from the ANTI-RADIO REGRESSION LEAGUE...
This was all in an earlier thread where the little PRO-Bandwidth Proposal Group got thoroughly stomped by the rest. In that discussion there was pretty much no hostile comment against AM. http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=107079 50 Pages of well-reasoned discussion (in most cases) and rebuttal by the people who have experienced the MENACE that K4CJX, KQ6XA and their petty, "Anti-amateur-radio-as-we-know- it" crowd are trying to FORCE on amateur radio. You will find VERY few supporters of this Bandwidth Proposal. The whole thing needs to be rejected lock, stock and barrel. I have left ARRL because of this, and the other (many) things they have done over the past few years to ruin amateur radio. They are NOT listening, and they are NO LONGER "Of, By and For the Radio Amateur." They are now Of, By and For the Commercial, Digital Special Interest Lobby headed by K4CJX and Winlink Pactor which has totally over-ruled sound judgement in regards to the rules governing automatic unattended HF digital stations The following is the BACKDROP to the lunacy that is now prevailing in ARRL's Proposal (WHICH I understand may be actually with the ENCOURAGEMENT AND COMPLICITY of FCC) http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html A torpedo fired into the heeart of AM would NOT be out of step with the kind of MANIPULATION that is already going on behind the scenes. OR just the threat of it to intimidate others into getting on board this train to hell in a hand basket. Your mileage may vary. My mileage will mostly stick with preserving the right to HOMEBREW, and to operate AM and CW without QRM from the PAC PESTS that belong on VHF and above. On 5 Dec 2005 at 0:33, Donald Chester wrote: > I think we could have reasonably well predicted this: > > "...Perhaps the one thing most egregious to digital proponents in the ARRL > bandwidth plan has been an exemption in the 3.5khz band segment for AM. Mr. > Rotolo confirms that this exception has raised quite a ruckus in the digital > community. It begs the question, if an exception is created for AM why not > an exception for 25khz data..." > > "...Perhaps the petition shows undue favoritism for AM phone. Instead of > that, a better way would be a 10kHz bandwidth overlay in parts of larger HF > ham bands at REDUCED AVERAGE POWER LEVEL(emphasis mine) This would allow AM > but not preclude other transmission methods with similar bandwidth occupancy > effects. Obviously, the ARRL has bowed to tradition in these areas in their > efforts to accommodate the status quo." > > http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=108389 > > Don k4kyv > > > ______________________________________________________________ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:[email protected] > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
