I see more activity on the QRZ and eHam message boards then I hear on my receivers.
And it is probably just as well! Bob Macklin K5MYJ Seattle, Wa. ----- Original Message ----- From: "peter markavage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire > Did you actually count how many "different" people actually commented on > these 50 pages? These "rejectors" of the proposal account for less than > .1% of the ham population. Show me better numbers and I'll have some > sympathy for your concern. Teller's comments also are almost three years > old. The proposal has gone through several iterations since then. Some of > the alternative proposals that are now being proposed on QRZ by these > ARRL proposal "rejectors" actually could provide much more harm to AM. > The ARRL proposal actually preserves our legacy mode out to 9KHz. > > Pete ,wa2cwa > > On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:37:26 -0500 "Brian Carling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > > > > 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 >
