ARRL and AM. minute #64, July 19-20, 2002

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by W0TDH, Aug 15, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
  1. W0TDH

    W0TDH Ham Member QRZ Page

    I received this msg. today es thought I would pass it on to those interested in the AM mode. Please contact all Directors of the ARRL es voice your opposition to this plan to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode.

    Tom - K0PJG - Life Member A.R.R.L.
    To view Collins equipment ;
    http://www.qrz.com/callsign/k0pjg


    All,

    I'm forwarding this message about the ARRL and AM. See attached. It looks like trouble again.

    Allen Cutts
    N4OZI



    ----- Subject: [AMRadio] Docket 20777 again!


    : Minute 64 adopted at the most recent
    : ARRL Board of Directors meeting on July 19-20, 2002:
    :
    :   http://www.arrl.org/announce/board-0207/
    :
    : 64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that
    at
    : the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise
    : Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode.
    :
    : The last time that was tried, back in the 70's, the proposed bandwidths
    were
    : 350 Hz and 3.5 kHz.  That was Docket 20777, the infamous FCC proposal that would have killed AM on the HF bands.  It was only through the strong  response of the AM community that the measure was rejected. We need to get busy on this one!
    :
    : Don K4KYV
    :
    : __
     
  2. N7CPC

    N7CPC Ham Member QRZ Page

    As an ARRL member I don't think the league has any right to propose anything that would endanger any mode still used by even one of its members.

    But then I like spark gap.

    73 de Craig...........N7CPC [​IMG]
     
  3. KB1GYQ

    KB1GYQ Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7CPC @ Aug. 15 2002,15:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...
    But then I like spark gap.
    ...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Yes! Did you ever hear AM modulated spark? Very cool! We must write the FCC and demand the return of the original radio modes!
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at: the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise: Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode.

    OK, let us ask the queston: How many of you are using voice in the subbands?

    Our interest is in digital. Presently the popular standard is RTTY at 300 baud. There is some new technology such as Clover 2000 and Pactor 3 that are a bit wider. We think that this requires some expermentation and use, thus the motion.

    And, for those of you that are using voice and or AM down in the subbands. . . .

    73

    Jim Haynie, W5JBP
    President, ARRL
     
  5. K6UEY

    K6UEY Ham Member QRZ Page

    In reading the previous postings I noticed  a particular trend,there is a noticable amount of anti-CW postings claiming the mode is out dated and no longer needed and that testing for proficiency should be eliminated.It is also obvious by it's omission that there is nothing said about the elimination of AM. Ancient Modulation  as it is refered to in most circles uses over twice the spectrum bandwidth of a SSB signal,and is 9 dB less effecient than a SSB signal. For those who don't operate the HF bands an antenna with 9 dB gain or loss for that matter would be a considerable amount especially for those who operate the 40, 80, 160, Meter bands. Some AM signals monitored exceed 12 KHz of banwidth,and on the crowded HF frequencies you could comfortably fit 4 SSB stations in that same bandwidth.
    Could it be that to put an AM station on the air it only requires the purchase of the equipment and Plug-N-Play instant gratification. However to master the task of being able to copy CW at the rate of 5 WPM it can take some people as much as hours of personal effort expended and concentration on learning.Is it a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing or or could one surmise that the anti-CW argument has no merit at all ? Do you think once the movement has eliminated CW that they will continue their crusade and have AM abolished from the bands as an outdated mode.Possibly it will continue and all analog voice modes of modulation will be eliminated.Could it be that Digital Spread Sprectrum is the wave of the future,no band over crowding,22 dB  S/N improvement. I must check the Yaseu and Kenwood ad's and see if the new SS appliances are on the market yet.
    Yes TOTO we are not in Kansas any more......
                                          73,   ORV


    EDITOR'S NOTE:

    &quot;In reading the previuos postings I noticed  a particular trend, there is a noticable amount of anti-CW postings claiming the mode is out dated and no longer needed and that testing for proficiency should be eliminated.&quot;

    In reading the previous posts on this thread, I fail to find ANY reference to CW. Orv, if this was a News Group, it would be suggested you are trolling.  :)

    Post Script:

    I may not have made my self absoluetly clear as I refered to the previous postings meaning all and inclusive threads and not selectivtively specifing one in particular. This thread has as a topic the use of AM so I felt the comments were best directed to post here.
    As far as Trolling I spent my time in Ham Radio and not the Cyber World so I can only guess it was meant as a non-complementry term. My comments were directed at stirring up brain matter and not meant to bring the flamers out from under their rocks....I Apolagize if my intent was mistaken.....73,  ORV
     
  6. K2WH

    K2WH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    No one uses AM voice in the sub bands. Read the proposal again! It's about digital signals.

    K2WH
     
  7. K3XR

    K3XR Ham Member QRZ Page

    w5jbp,Aug. 15 2002,15:28]64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at: the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise: Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode.

    Our interest is in digital. Presently the popular standard is RTTY at 300 baud. There is some new technology such as Clover 2000 and Pactor 3 that are a bit wider. We think that this requires some expermentation and use, thus the motion.

    73

    Jim Haynie, W5JBP
    President, ARRL


    if your interest is digital...why not have frenaye make that clear in his motion...and maybe you would not need to deal with these guys getting upset about am...
    by the way,i did not read every word in part 97, but i can't seem to find the word ...s u b b a n d....could you help me out here....

    dan,k3xr
     
  8. KE7VE

    KE7VE Banned QRZ Page

    Let's see, I can operate cw from 14.0 to 14.350, but I can only operate phone from 14.150 to 14.350 soooo the subband is where? Did I miss something? I thought I always operated phone in a subband. Did someone change the meaning of something?

    Marty K7RKR
     
  9. N7CPC

    N7CPC Ham Member QRZ Page

    GYQ......I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact, I am composing a proposal for AMSAT requesting an AMSG transponder. I'll get it nipped off to them as soon as I work out the polarity issue.

    73 de Craig.........N7CPC [​IMG]
     
  10. W1RFI

    W1RFI Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Aug. 15 2002,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No one uses AM voice in the sub bands.  Read the proposal again!  It's about digital signals.

    K2WH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    &gt; No one uses AM voice in the sub bands.  Read the
    &gt; proposal again!  It's about digital signals.

    &gt;&gt; 64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr.
    &gt;&gt; Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical
    &gt;&gt; opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise
    &gt;&gt; Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth
    &gt;&gt; instead of by mode.

    Questions about where to put some of the wider, but purely data digital modes, were probably the impetus behind this motion, but the scope of the motion is not limited to digital or digital voice.  Way back when slow-scan was first getting started in ham radio, the FCC made the decision to put it in what were then the &quot;phone&quot; bands, because of the wider bandwidth.

    Right now, data digital signals need to be run in the CW/digital bands, irrespective of bandwidth and voice signals, even digital voice signals, must be run in the phone/image bands.  The digital signals are limited to specific, slow, symbol rates, irrespective of bandwidth. The net effect is, IMHO, that the ability of hams to experiment is hindered by regulations that were written back in the days when radio was a lot more simple than it is today.

    With people like former FCC staffer Dale Hatfield giving speeches that amateur radio needs to modernize, I think we all need to pay attention to the need for our rules to be written to faciliate, not hinder, that modernization.

    I believe the concern by full-carrier, double-sideband AM ops will be addresses when the ARRL petitions the FCC. While not as popular as SSB, AM is a legitimate amatuer pursuit and it should be treated as fairly as any other mode. Its necessary bandwidth is approximately 6 kHz. It wouldn't hurt for AMers to make sure their Director knows their concerns, but this is not an attempt by ARRL to eliminate AM operation. Now, if the limits on bandwidth are spelled out, some of the AM ops that intentionally design audio response up to 20 kHz or so, giving about a 40 kHz occupied bandwidth, may take exception to the rules, but the rules acutally cover that right now with the requirement to use good amateur practice.

    IMHO, the sky is not falling. This change will be one that will help ensure the best compatibility between the new and exciting modes that are coming into vogue in the amateur radio service and the existing modes that form the backbone of what ham radio is to most individuals.

    Just MHO, of course.

    73,
    Ed Hare, W1RFI
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page