Re: [AMRadio] ARRL has filed its bandwidth proposal with FCC
It does not seem as though they deliberately relegate AM to a footnote, it looks more like the effort is only to give AM its due, while keeping the hi-fi SSB stuff at bay. That's what I see anyway, between the lines. They could have as easily put the AM exception statement in each cell of the table, then it would not be a footnote, but that would have messed up the table and beaurocrats like nice orderly documents. VE VILL HAFF ODAH!! I think we should be glad for the '9K' limit on AM and not make too much noise lest they decide 6K00A3E is the legal limit! problems, however: No ISB. why? maybe because of the 3.5KHz rule.. So much for the Harris Monstrosity I am trying to obtain. It can do voice on one sideband and data on the other. I know it's a military specialty, but it's nice! And I would like to see the rules for AM go back to the traditional KW input. It's no good for a 4-1000 to operate at 2000V and boil off all those electrons from the filament and not use them! Wishful thinking I suppose. -but the upside is I can use the absolute worst pulls!! http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/bandwidth/Bandwidth-Minute-64-Petition-FINAL.pdf Who's running the ARRL and FCC anyway? :) PJ
Re: [AMRadio] ARRL has filed its bandwidth proposal with FCC
Of course, a strict 3.5 kHz limit would shut down a lot of slopbuckets as well. Don, k4kyv Yep...I wuz wonderin' about the ESSB crowd. Therez quite a bunch running wideband SSB. Pretty interesting to note all the outboard processing gear that is used, along with expensive studio mics. Having said that (too much already?) SOME of those ESSB signals take up WAY less bandwidth than the turn-on-the-processor-crank-it-up-and-use-my-leeenyear slopbuckets that occupy 10 or 20 Khz 73 de Dan WAØJRD ..
RE: [AMRadio] ARRL has filed its bandwidth proposal with FCC
Having said that (too much already?) SOME of those ESSB signals take up WAY less bandwidth than the turn-on-the-processor-crank-it-up-and-use-my-leeenyear slopbuckets that occupy 10 or 20 Khz 73 de Dan WAØJRD .. How true! Most of the ones I've heard sound really good and they aren't splattering all over the band. 73, Don W2DAS __ 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
Re: [AMRadio] ARRL has filed its bandwidth proposal with FCC
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Don. I still have you and Roger Frith, N4IBF to thank for reviving my interest in AM back about 20 years ago in Nashville! Let us all know if we need to write to the goon squads about their latest foray into foolishness. On 16 Nov 2005 at 2:46, Donald Chester wrote: http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/bandwidth/Bandwidth-Minute-64-Petition-FINAL.pdf I printed all 25 pages of the petition so I can sit down comfortably and digest it all. I don't think the FCC accepts comments to a petition until it has been assigned a RM- number. Also, not sure if they have a reply-comment period for a petition that has not officially become a NPRM. Maybe someone could clarify this. No doubt some of the anti-AM crowd will call for getting rid of the 9 kHz exception for AM, and that's what bothers me most about this thing - AM would be permitted only by an exception containted in a footnote, which could be very easily deleted. Also, there is no guarantee that the FCC's NPRM would even resemble the original petition. They could come out with something pretty much identical to Docket 20777, which would have eliminated AM altogether, back in the 70's. Also, I'm not sure about the occupied bandwidth vs necessary bandwidth issue, as far as how bandwidth would be defined. The last time I checked, Canada still had a maximum bandwidth limit of 6 kHz for AM, but I never have heard of a Canadian ham being cited for running too much bandwidth while running a normal AM signal. I don't know how picky the FCC would be about this. Of course, a strict 3.5 kHz limit would shut down a lot of slopbuckets as well. Don, k4kyv __ 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
[AMRadio] ARRL has filed its bandwidth proposal with FCC
http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/bandwidth/Bandwidth-Minute-64-Petition-FINAL.pdf I printed all 25 pages of the petition so I can sit down comfortably and digest it all. I don't think the FCC accepts comments to a petition until it has been assigned a RM- number. Also, not sure if they have a reply-comment period for a petition that has not officially become a NPRM. Maybe someone could clarify this. No doubt some of the anti-AM crowd will call for getting rid of the 9 kHz exception for AM, and that's what bothers me most about this thing - AM would be permitted only by an exception containted in a footnote, which could be very easily deleted. Also, there is no guarantee that the FCC's NPRM would even resemble the original petition. They could come out with something pretty much identical to Docket 20777, which would have eliminated AM altogether, back in the 70's. Also, I'm not sure about the occupied bandwidth vs necessary bandwidth issue, as far as how bandwidth would be defined. The last time I checked, Canada still had a maximum bandwidth limit of 6 kHz for AM, but I never have heard of a Canadian ham being cited for running too much bandwidth while running a normal AM signal. I don't know how picky the FCC would be about this. Of course, a strict 3.5 kHz limit would shut down a lot of slopbuckets as well. Don, k4kyv
