Re: [AMRadio] Grandpa's Radio ?
- Original Message - Trying to kill a proposal because you believe it's out to screw you is just plain fantasy. The proposal is a future based plan for our Service. And if you believe that, I have this lovely bridge in New York City that I would like to sell you. Hell, I could even throw in the Pierce Street and Market Street bridges in downtown Wilkes-Barre for just $11,306 extra! (The mayflies are available for a slight extra charge.) The League and its supporters, in clamoring for even more regulation of an already grossly overregulated radio service, remind me of the nerdy little kid who would always ask the teacher to assign more homework to the class. Like that kid, the League people deserve to have the living shit beaten out of them! Rather than doing that, we should simply refuse to buy their publications and refuse to take out membership in that pernicious organization. And we should totally ostracize anyone within our group who supports the League, as the clique in Newington certainly does not have OUR best interests in mind. Of course, we will hear that old chestnut about members being able to influence the League. If you believe that, I'm sure you also have faith in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. There is something seriously wrong with amateur radio regulation in this country when even Castro's Cuba has more lenient regulations than we do. For the Cubans don't have to put up with any of that subband nonsense. They have three classes of operator license, with CL stations being restricted to two or three bands, CM stations having most privileges, but with reduced power, and CO stations having full privileges, with no emission or bandwidth subbands to worry about. But the Uncle Toms of our hobby/service will always insist that we Americans should always have to ride in the back of the spectrum bus... Phil Galasso K2PG
[AMRadio] Grandpa's Radio ?
Brad, KB7FQR -- You gave me some food for thought when you made your point that as we get older we don't necessarily have to lose any of life's privileges, as applied to ham radio. As the group in Newington tries to force the development of digital communications, we can legitimately question change for the sake of change. My Comment that I shall be filing this weekend in Opposition to the Petition RM-11306 will mention the flawed approach of using the regulatory structure to promote something that is not, today, becoming popular on its own. Indeed, there is great concern about bringing email from the internet over ham radio that this proposal from the ARRL would try to achieve. I believe there's room to encourage the development of the category of digital communications, but feel that the operators implementing new, controversial modes should earn a place on the bands just like the rest of us have seen the value of so doing. Those who have assured the place of AM on the ham bands over the years can take a bow, because our record of compliance is very strong at the FCC. In fact, based on what we know from the enforcement file, the AM Community, as an identifyable group, is among the most observant of the Rules today. That should and MUST count when there are regulatory proposals that penalize us with rules not really matched with what we do. The imposition of a 4500 hz audio bandpass would create problems by taking away from us the responsible, self-determined use of spectrum we have demonstrated, and would also hand a tool to those who wish to file bogus complaints against us using a phantom bandwidth standard. We who are fighting the Petition from the ARRL hope to wrap up a compilation of Comments opposed by Sunday night so that they can be submitted to the FCC on the final business day of the Comment period, Monday, Feb. 6th. If you haven't spent a few moments expressing yourself, please do so? [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brad, I hope you'll consider making your posting here part of your Comment to the FCC, if you haven't already. Turns out you can file more than one Comment, by the way, so no one should feel they get only one chance by the deadline. Paul/VJB -- Why do we have to change now? Just because there are a few new modes comming on board, why reduce the rights of the founding fathers of radio. We are being attacked, we need to stand WITH ONE VOICE, leave the founders of radio alone. Just because our grandparents are older, does not mean there privileges in life should be reduce by others. Brad KB7FQR __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [AMRadio] Grandpa's Radio ?
Paul, did you receive the CRA's comments? Also, I would like to place some editorial material in this issue of the Collins Journal - therefore, if you wish to forward me a guest editorial, it would be most welcomed. Lots of Collins owners, like myself, want to protect our use of our Collins on AM. Thank you. Dave, W3ST Publisher of the Collins Journal Secretary to the Collins Radio Association www.collinsra.com - the CRA Website Now with PayPal CRA Nets: 3805 Khz every Monday at 8 PM EST and 14255 every Saturday at 12 Noon EST - Original Message - From: VJB [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 9:19 AM Subject: [AMRadio] Grandpa's Radio ? Brad, KB7FQR -- You gave me some food for thought when you made your point that as we get older we don't necessarily have to lose any of life's privileges, as applied to ham radio. As the group in Newington tries to force the development of digital communications, we can legitimately question change for the sake of change. My Comment that I shall be filing this weekend in Opposition to the Petition RM-11306 will mention the flawed approach of using the regulatory structure to promote something that is not, today, becoming popular on its own. Indeed, there is great concern about bringing email from the internet over ham radio that this proposal from the ARRL would try to achieve. I believe there's room to encourage the development of the category of digital communications, but feel that the operators implementing new, controversial modes should earn a place on the bands just like the rest of us have seen the value of so doing. Those who have assured the place of AM on the ham bands over the years can take a bow, because our record of compliance is very strong at the FCC. In fact, based on what we know from the enforcement file, the AM Community, as an identifyable group, is among the most observant of the Rules today. That should and MUST count when there are regulatory proposals that penalize us with rules not really matched with what we do. The imposition of a 4500 hz audio bandpass would create problems by taking away from us the responsible, self-determined use of spectrum we have demonstrated, and would also hand a tool to those who wish to file bogus complaints against us using a phantom bandwidth standard. We who are fighting the Petition from the ARRL hope to wrap up a compilation of Comments opposed by Sunday night so that they can be submitted to the FCC on the final business day of the Comment period, Monday, Feb. 6th. If you haven't spent a few moments expressing yourself, please do so? [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brad, I hope you'll consider making your posting here part of your Comment to the FCC, if you haven't already. Turns out you can file more than one Comment, by the way, so no one should feel they get only one chance by the deadline. Paul/VJB -- Why do we have to change now? Just because there are a few new modes comming on board, why reduce the rights of the founding fathers of radio. We are being attacked, we need to stand WITH ONE VOICE, leave the founders of radio alone. Just because our grandparents are older, does not mean there privileges in life should be reduce by others. Brad KB7FQR __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
RE: [AMRadio] Grandpa's Radio ?
Paul, Thanks for your comments, I have made several posts to the web with little response. I am one of the younger AM operators (in my mid 40's) but have been in love with the building, restoring and collecting of tube radios for over 30 years. I think the future is learning from our past. I do believe in change (The Only Thing Constant in Life Is Change) I welcome new modes of communications, but don't sweep AM under the rug, or take our rights away to use high quality transmitters with narrow bandwidth. WE ARE NOT APPLIANCE OPERATORS. As stated last night on the news, we are lagging behind the rest of the would in turning out new engineers. We need to keep innovation going. We are some of those innovators. I hold several patents in modern products on the market, one of them kills bird flu and other airborne and waterborne diseases, Where one of the major improvements came from was my 866 rectifiers in my Johnson 500. My ham radio help start a industry that has saved many lives and countless suffering. Strange twist but true. Why does the FAA still use AM? Our aviation industry depends on AM to keep our people safe and we have the best safety record in the world. AM should be eliminated as some would say ? HUMM. Paul if you think my comments on track and the FCC and ARRL should read them let me know and where to post them. Thanks for listening Brad KB7FQR -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of VJB Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 6:19 AM To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Subject: [AMRadio] Grandpa's Radio ? Brad, KB7FQR -- You gave me some food for thought when you made your point that as we get older we don't necessarily have to lose any of life's privileges, as applied to ham radio. As the group in Newington tries to force the development of digital communications, we can legitimately question change for the sake of change. My Comment that I shall be filing this weekend in Opposition to the Petition RM-11306 will mention the flawed approach of using the regulatory structure to promote something that is not, today, becoming popular on its own. Indeed, there is great concern about bringing email from the internet over ham radio that this proposal from the ARRL would try to achieve. I believe there's room to encourage the development of the category of digital communications, but feel that the operators implementing new, controversial modes should earn a place on the bands just like the rest of us have seen the value of so doing. Those who have assured the place of AM on the ham bands over the years can take a bow, because our record of compliance is very strong at the FCC. In fact, based on what we know from the enforcement file, the AM Community, as an identifyable group, is among the most observant of the Rules today. That should and MUST count when there are regulatory proposals that penalize us with rules not really matched with what we do. The imposition of a 4500 hz audio bandpass would create problems by taking away from us the responsible, self-determined use of spectrum we have demonstrated, and would also hand a tool to those who wish to file bogus complaints against us using a phantom bandwidth standard. We who are fighting the Petition from the ARRL hope to wrap up a compilation of Comments opposed by Sunday night so that they can be submitted to the FCC on the final business day of the Comment period, Monday, Feb. 6th. If you haven't spent a few moments expressing yourself, please do so? [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brad, I hope you'll consider making your posting here part of your Comment to the FCC, if you haven't already. Turns out you can file more than one Comment, by the way, so no one should feel they get only one chance by the deadline. Paul/VJB -- Why do we have to change now? Just because there are a few new modes comming on board, why reduce the rights of the founding fathers of radio. We are being attacked, we need to stand WITH ONE VOICE, leave the founders of radio alone. Just because our grandparents are older, does not mean there privileges in life should be reduce by others. Brad KB7FQR __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
Re: [AMRadio] Grandpa's Radio ?
The FCC has already said in a past proceeding that the current Amateur Radio Service rules hinder the growth and experimentation of new technologies on the amateur bands. So, I suspect, change will be coming, sooner or later, regardless of how many negative comments you want to throw at RM-11306. Actually, I would spend my energies throwing all I could at RM-11305, which, if accepted, would create total anarchy all over the HF bands. RM-11306's intent is to create a structure for the future of the Amateur Radio Service. It was not designed to please individual amateurs in the near term. RM-11306, as written, does little, except maybe to a small subset of AM operators, to create any operating problems. Using their(ARRL) terms defining bandwidth by necessary bandwidth rather than occupied bandwidth, should have little to no impact on the majority of AM operators. If you don't like their Winlink pitch, tell the FCC to retain the current 97.221 rule, which keeps Winlink stuff confined to their current small segment of certain bands. If you don't like the note exemption for AM, tell them you want to see AM identified in the proper tables along with other identified bandwidths. If you want strong band plans, you should demand that all amateurs provide input into creating such band plans. Trying to kill a proposal because you believe it's out to screw you is just plain fantasy. The proposal is a future based plan for our Service. You may think hobby but that won't win you any points with the FCC. I will agree that the proposal is not without its problems as written, but provide input on the parts of the structure that you feel are wrong and need to be corrected. The Amateur Radio Service is going to move forward. It has to in order to stay alive. Keeping the status quo, i.e. I like it the way it is, don't change anything, isn't going to work. It might work today but, for sure, it won't work tomorrow. If you're have already filed your comments on both RM-11305 and RM-11306, I would encourage you to go back and consider filing additional comments. As Paul, I want no rules has said, you can file more than one time. Let's have a hand at shaping our Amateur Radio Service, not so much for us, but for our future generations. Pete, WA2CWA On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 06:19:02 -0800 (PST) VJB [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brad, KB7FQR -- You gave me some food for thought when you made your point that as we get older we don't necessarily have to lose any of life's privileges, as applied to ham radio. As the group in Newington tries to force the development of digital communications, we can legitimately question change for the sake of change. My Comment that I shall be filing this weekend in Opposition to the Petition RM-11306 will mention the flawed approach of using the regulatory structure to promote something that is not, today, becoming popular on its own. Indeed, there is great concern about bringing email from the internet over ham radio that this proposal from the ARRL would try to achieve. I believe there's room to encourage the development of the category of digital communications, but feel that the operators implementing new, controversial modes should earn a place on the bands just like the rest of us have seen the value of so doing. Those who have assured the place of AM on the ham bands over the years can take a bow, because our record of compliance is very strong at the FCC. In fact, based on what we know from the enforcement file, the AM Community, as an identifyable group, is among the most observant of the Rules today. That should and MUST count when there are regulatory proposals that penalize us with rules not really matched with what we do. The imposition of a 4500 hz audio bandpass would create problems by taking away from us the responsible, self-determined use of spectrum we have demonstrated, and would also hand a tool to those who wish to file bogus complaints against us using a phantom bandwidth standard. We who are fighting the Petition from the ARRL hope to wrap up a compilation of Comments opposed by Sunday night so that they can be submitted to the FCC on the final business day of the Comment period, Monday, Feb. 6th. If you haven't spent a few moments expressing yourself, please do so? [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brad, I hope you'll consider making your posting here part of your Comment to the FCC, if you haven't already. Turns out you can file more than one Comment, by the way, so no one should feel they get only one chance by the deadline. Paul/VJB -- Why do we have to change now? Just because there are a few new modes comming on board, why reduce the rights of the founding fathers of radio. We are being attacked, we need to stand WITH ONE VOICE, leave the founders of radio alone. Just because our grandparents are older, does not mean there privileges in life should be reduce by others. Brad
Re: [AMRadio] Grandpa's Radio ?
Peter Markavage wrote: I thought the campaigning was deemed taboo, here?
