Kim W5TIT wrote:

Hmmmm, Jim/N2EY made that observation also. Then, I see the comment that
spark was a transmission method--not a mode. I think that's splitting
hairs, isn't it? I'm asking--I wasn't around for spark

and

Whoooohooooo, I know a few of those "forever" gang down here--and they are
as passionate about AM as any ardent CW fan! Dems would be fightin' words
in this neck 'o the woods. At any rate, so you're bringing up the scenario
that someone outside the FCC would bring up a petition to ban a mode.
Hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that--but why? Why would anyone want to have a
mode banned? I mean, seriously, what would be gained?


Spark is very, very wideband. This was probably a good thing in th
early days of radio, since the transmitter and reciever didn't have to
be tuned too closely to each other.

A modern day example might be a failing transformer on a power line. If
something is arcing inside it or to a connection, it can put out a lot
of rf noise that extends over a lot of bandwidth. It would mess with
almost any rf device in the house.

That's why spark was banned.

As for AM, I have no problem with it. It does use more bandwidth
though, and that is why some hams and others don't like it. But to me
it's a cool "retro" mode. Not very efficient, but who says it has to be?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Kim W5TIT" wrote

At any rate, so you're bringing up the scenario
that someone outside the FCC would bring up a petition to ban a mode.
Hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that--but why? Why would anyone want to have a
mode banned? I mean, seriously, what would be gained?

As to "what would be gained", that obviously depends on who is
advancing the petition and what their agenda might be.

There's another more contemporary example than the AM situation. On
20M there is a small group of experimenters who are playing with
something they call "enhanced SSB". This is regular old SSB, but
these guys are enamored of excellent audio quality and spend a great
deal of time (and money) modifying their radios and microphone/audio
systems to gain the very best audio fidelity that they can manage.
This results in bandwidth usage greater than typical SSB (nominally
3KHz) but less than AM (nominally 6KHz).

This operation, although it consists of only a small number of
enthusiasts (perhaps less than 20 stations) and is situated on only
one small segment of the HF bands, has been the subject of many
complaints to the FCC (for occupying more bandwidth than necessary),
and Hollingsworth has gone so far as to make note of it in a speech at
a hamfest last winter. He warned that such use of the spectrum might
lead to FCC rule changes.

Now mind you, this "mode" uses less space than an AM signal conveying
the same information. It logically follows that if this "mode" is
banned for being spectrum-inefficient, then the
even-more-spectrum-inefficient DSB AM mode probably would fall to the
same regulatory action. (I'm not suggesting that FCC is always
logical, however grin.)

So back to your "Why would anyone want to have a mode banned?"
question. Ask yourself why people have targeted a few stations on
"enhanced SSB" (perhaps 4.5KHz wide), but do not complain about many
more DSB AM stations on the bands (perhaps 6KHz wide)? Could it be
that they simply have a personal agenda which is not evident from the
facts?

Now look at the persistent demeaning language here against Morse code
users, and it doesn't take much imagination to expect that a "no more
CW use" petition might show up at the Commission some day soon.

As you know, I don't think Morse testing is any longer a regulatory
necessity, but I am very much a CW-lover and have a low-level (but
growing) concern that the end of Morse testing is only a first step on
some peoples agenda.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Bill Sohl" wrote


Yet AM is still allowed.


Yes, it certainly is. But for how long?

Riley Hollingsworth told a Richmond, Virginia hamfest last spring
(speaking of "enhanced SSB") that deliberately operating a wideband
mode in a crowded spectrum is "shortsighted and rude," may be ignoring
the "minimum bandwidth necessary" rule. Now if 4.5KHz-wide signals are
shortsighted and rude, then it logically follows that 6KHz-wide AM
signals containing the same information are even more shortsighted and
rude.

He also hinted that continued complaints "WILL (my emphasis) lead to
pressure on the FCC to revise the Amateur Service rules." Would you
expect DSB AM to survive such revision?

Cheers to you too,

de Hans, K0HB

"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
Ain't it amazing Bruce? This Texas Twit keeps sticking that foot deeper
in
her mouth everytime.

Hug and Chalk is going strong.

Dan/W4NTI

Didnt you like that comment over hers Dan, 1 of GIRL FREINDS, maybe she
just
has a problem with guys, you dont think she might be lite in the Loafers
do
you?

Could be....one thing I do know is she certainly has 'issues'..

Dan/W4NTI

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote



But, did the FCC ever get anywhere close to seeing its use banned? I am
not, remember, saying that a mode would become so unpopular or disliked
on a
scale such that it would be rare to find it openly being used. I am
saying,
however, that I believe the FCC would never regulate its ban.


Spark transmissions were outlawed (as well they should have been) so
the precedent exists.

On a more immediate note, as relates to your discussion on AM phone,
I'd have to dig out some old material to get all the facts exactly in
order, but there was a petition (in the 70's?) which the I
***believe*** the FCC had moved to the stage of an NPRM to outlaw AM
transmissions on the HF amateur bands. The rationale was that AM was
(is?) wasteful of spectrum because SSB can convey the same message in
half the bandwidth oF DSB AM phone and without those awful sounding
hetrodyning carriers. The proposal narrowly missed being adopted,
only because of a huge hue and cry from thousands of AM-forever hams
(who drew ARRL into the fight on their side). Today you're hard
pressed to find any remaining AM-ers on the band, and if the petition
were re-introduced it might well be adopted due to lack of organized
opposition. Most of the AM-forever crowd has moved to "forever".

73, de Hans, K0HB

Sorry Hans, the AM forever crowd is still well represented, by not only
old guys, but a lot of new guys using rice boxes.

Go to Google and do a search of AM phone. You will be amazed.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Kim wrote:

Hmmmm, Jim/N2EY made that observation also. Then, I see the comment that
spark was a transmission method--not a mode. I think that's splitting
hairs, isn't it? I'm asking--I wasn't around for spark

They called it "Mode B". And there were also arc transmitters - not the same
thing.

and

Whoooohooooo, I know a few of those "forever" gang down here--and they are
as passionate about AM as any ardent CW fan! Dems would be fightin' words
in this neck 'o the woods. At any rate, so you're bringing up the scenario
that someone outside the FCC would bring up a petition to ban a mode.
Hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that--but why? Why would anyone want to have a
mode banned? I mean, seriously, what would be gained?


Spark is very, very wideband. This was probably a good thing in th
early days of radio, since the transmitter and reciever didn't have to
be tuned too closely to each other.

Some receivers were not even tuned at all.

A modern day example might be a failing transformer on a power line. If

something is arcing inside it or to a connection, it can put out a lot
of rf noise that extends over a lot of bandwidth. It would mess with
almost any rf device in the house.

That's why spark was banned.

That's one reason.

Another was that almost nobody was using it after about 1924-5, but there was
concern about folks looking at "old" books and thinking they could still use
it.

Consider how fast the change came. When hams got back on the air after WW1,
spark was undisputed king. Five years later, it was a memory. The difference
between a "state of the art" 1919 ham station and a similar one in 1939 is
simply amazing. Almost nothing from the former would still be in the latter.

As for AM, I have no problem with it. It does use more bandwidth
though, and that is why some hams and others don't like it. But to me
it's a cool "retro" mode. Not very efficient, but who says it has to be?

Depends how you define efficiency. AM operations tend to be roundtables where
many hams gather on one freq. So the number of "Hz used per ham on the air" can
be pretty low.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bill Sohl" wrote


We (NCI) have no problem with code USE.


I believe that is the official position of NCI, but sometimes "body
language" gives a different perception.

For example, on our web home page, NCI goes to some length to make
it's position "crystal clear" that

"2. Manual radiotelegraphy communications has been
superceded by more modern, reliable, accurate,
faster and efficient means of communication. "

That "crystal clear" statement doesn't speak to TESTING at all. It
speaks to things like reliability, accuracy, speed, and efficiency of
communications. In other words, issues surrounding the USE of the
mode. That sort of official statement, along with the propensity of
the Executive Director to publicly portray Morse USERS in a
less-than-favorable light, creates impressions which run counter to
your assertion above.

I have separately petitioned the Board of Directors to make a single
simple organizational change which would go MILES toward reinforcing
your statement above. I'll await with interest the report of the next
quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors.

73, de Hans, K0HB
NCI # 4303 http://www.nocode.org

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...

As you know, I don't think Morse testing is any longer a regulatory
necessity, but I am very much a CW-lover and have a low-level (but
growing) concern that the end of Morse testing is only a first step on
some peoples agenda.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Not mine, not NCI's, Hans ...

Carl - wk3c

That "crystal clear" statement doesn't speak to TESTING at all. It
speaks to things like reliability, accuracy, speed, and efficiency of
communications. In other words, issues surrounding the USE of the
mode. That sort of official statement, along with the propensity of
the Executive Director to publicly portray Morse USERS in a
less-than-favorable light, creates impressions which run counter to
your assertion above.

I have separately petitioned the Board of Directors to make a single
simple organizational change which would go MILES toward reinforcing
your statement above. I'll await with interest the report of the next
quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors.

73, de Hans, K0HB
NCI # 4303 http://www.nocode.org


Oh no your in trouble now, I ll bet you as we speak, your member number is
being discarded. If you had gotten permission to make the above statements with
Karls permission, you would have probably been OK.

As you know, I don't think Morse testing is any longer a regulatory
necessity, but I am very much a CW-lover and have a low-level (but
growing) concern that the end of Morse testing is only a first step on
some peoples agenda.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Not mine, not NCI's, Hans ...

Carl - wk3c

You finally got the picture.