It might be a better idea to simply reply to the FCC on rulemaking proposals. This is making it a personal issue.
Bacon, WA3WDR ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Dover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:25 PM Subject: [AMRadio] Your recent comments on AM (Tannehill) > >Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:55:50 -0600 > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >From: Ben Dover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Your recent comments on AM (Tannehill) > > > >Greetings. > > > >By this time you've no doubt gotten your E-mail boxes well and truly > >filled with howls of outrage from AM operators because of your comments. > >If not, consider this to be the FIRST of the coming flood. > > > >I'll address said comments one point at a time; interestingly, starting > >with the LAST: > > > > > >>> Richard L. Tannehill P.E. - W7RT > > > >ARRL Life Member > >(45-years amateur licensed)<< > > > > > > > >First off... your four plus decades as a licensee don't impress > >me in the least; I've held an EXTRA for four plus decades (and > >remember that back then you had to hold a General, Conditional, > >or the then defunct/ grandfathered Advanced for a MINIMUM of > >TWO YEARS before you could even APPLY for an Extra). > > > >Next... holding the license of Professional Engineer doesn't > >impress me either. I've known a number of PEs over the years, > >and at one time toyed with the idea of apply for one myself. > >Most PEs are level headed, competent engineering types, but > >in my line of work (broadcasting) I've ALSO run into a number > >of them who got the license by the means of weekend "cram courses" > >taken so that the PE behind thier names would hopefully make > >them more convincing as salesmen of broadcasting equipment. A lot > >of these so-called "engineers" quite frankly didn't know which > >end of the hot soldering iron you're supposed to grab until they > >got a PRACTICAL lesson on that subject! > > > >Attempting to bolster one's credibility and personal prestige by > >waving irrelevant certification around is, to say the least, pompous > >and arrogant. It's common practice among broadcast engineers > >to do so. The Society of Broadcast Engineers, among others, has it's > >own program of ego boosting "certification" tests, and the wild > >proliferation of letters routinely placed behind names in E-mails and > >on business cards is tiresome, at best. To point it out, a colleague > >of mine has taken to adding ONLY the letters CMM behind his name > >in E-mails regarding engineering subjects. When someone bites and asks > >what the hell a "CMM" is, he tells them... Certified Motorcycle Mechanic, > >a certificate (which he DOES INDEED hold), and which is just as relevant > >to the subject at hand as the certifications everyone ELSE is tossing > >around with such gay abandon. > > > > > >>>The League claims that their plan does not favor one mode over > >another. Not true. It favors AM-DSB operators. It would allow for > >9 KHz AM modulation, in bands which otherwise are limited to 3.5 KHz. > >These include the lower HF bands, which are quite crowded at times.<< > > > >If you'll think back a little over your 45 years of hamming, you'll > >recall that from the beginning of that period the #1 complaint of > >EVERYONE has been "the bands are too crowded... SOMETHING has to > >be done!". Digging a little bit deeper in old issues of QST, you'll > >find that Hiram Percy Maxim himself, writing as T.O.M. (The Old Man), > >was complaining that the bands were too crowded BEFORE WORLD WAR ONE. > > > >The defnition of "too crowded" seems to be "I can't get on the frequency > >that I want whenever I want to do it, because some *^%&$%$@ is already > >there!". I'm sure you'll agree that this definition is specious at best. > > > >Once again, turning to your PERSONAL experience, you'll no doubt recall > >the incredibly vicious on the air battles between the then dominant AM > >operators and the newfangled "Slop Buckets". I can sure as hell remember > >them... wall to wall deliberate QRM, and name calling that fell just > >short of open obscenities (unlike today, hams back then DID respect that > >particular part of the regulations). > > > >Going back a bit farther... there was the long standing animosity between > >CW operators and AM people; there was simmering resentment from the CW camp > >when a phone band was added to 40 meters. > > > >Behind both of these battles was the usually bogus claim that spectrum > >space was being wasted. > > > >That argument is no more valid in the current case as it was in the past. > >Amateur radio isn't about cramming the ultimate signal capacity into the > >given bandwidth... it's about ENJOYING yourself, and having some flex in > >the rules to experiment. > > > > > >>> The solution is simply to restrict AM-DSB to above 28.5 MHz. (10 meters > >& above) << > > > >Actually, a BETTER solution would be to restrict ALL digital modes to 10 > >meters and above, and for some solid engineering reasons. MANY digital > >modes are essentially PULSE transmissions, and as anyone who has dealt with > >pulse knows the generation of spurious, out of band products is INEVITABLE. > >Just ask any broadcaster who is wrestling with an addition of the IBOC system > >about that one... which points out something else. Newer modulation schemes, > >in order to work at all, usually DEMAND inherently wider spectrum slices. > Were > >that not the case, my employer would not be spending tens of thousands of > >dollars for new antenna systems and tower crew costs to install them. > > > >Given the wildly variable levels of amateur expertise, plus a "why should I > >give a damn as long as MY system works" attitude, sending the more modern > >modes of transmission to the Siberia of VHF / UHF makes a whole lot MORE > >sense. > > > > > >>> Amateurs and the league have been upset in the past over wide-SSB > >modulation, meant to improve audio quality. AM is no different from > >this. << > > > >This is your only valid point, IMHO. Narrow minded amateurs who whine > >"the bands are too crowded", and an ARRL that is usually for sale to the > >highest bidding equipment manufacturer should NOT have opposed high > >quality SSB transmission by a few forward thinking hams. > > > > > >>> It is an old modulation that adds nothing to advancing the technological > >art, and should be confined to bands where there is ample spectrum > >available. << > > > >Yes, amplitude modulation IS an old modulation scheme, which does little to > >advance the technology. But... making that argument shows that you haven't > >been looking at the big picture over the years. > > > >The last time that individual innnovators advanced technology was before > >WW1. Lee Deforest went BROKE, numerous times, by clinging to the concept of > >independent inventors being the main driving force in the technological > >advancement of this country. These days, innovation comes from INDUSTRIAL, > >UNIVERSITY, OR GOVERNMENT R&D LABORATORIES. > > > >Can you imagine what the result would have been had an individual inventor > >come to General Leslie Groves and said "I have this GREAT idea for a weapon. > >You smack two hunks of uranium together and there's a hell of an explosion. > >Just give me a few billion dollars and we can get started building it"? > > > >Groves would have had the MPs toss this guy out on his ass, and then chewed > >a few butts for even allowing such NUTS in the front door to bother him! > > > >These days, sad to say, hams aren't even on the front lines of technological > >advancement anymore. Nowadays, we don't even have the Defense Department as a > >watchdog over our spectrum anymore... the 220 MHz ham band used to be under > >DoD protection because it was spectrum that they could expand into in time > >of war and severe need for spectrum. > > > >Guess what? UPS trucks are on 220 now! > > > >I've heard from DoD folks that the general attitude there is to regard hams > >as IRRELEVANT. We simply don't fit into thier planning or consideration any > >more, and we haven't for at least a decade... just look at the current state > >of the MARS program if you need proof of the truth of that statement. > > > > > >I'm sure that on this we'll just have to "agree to disagree", but I found it > >to be quite ungenerous to post your comments simply because YOU aren't an > >AM operator. > > > >AM has a LONG tradition as a viable and useful mode of emission in MANY radio > >service, not just on the ham bands. To exile it to VHF at this point in > history > >is a ridiculous proposal, IMHO. > > > > > >73's, > > > >Tom Adams, W9LBB > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ _______ > 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, Paul Courson/wa3vjb >
