Re: Topband: The Quest to save AM radio
Unlikely to ever get past the starting gate as AM Broadcast is a worldwide allocation and I'd think that many other nations have an opinion on this. 73 Bob k2euh Mike Armstrong armst...@aol.com wrote: Brad, *I* say GOOD, let them kill AM broadcast and give the band to US. we will put it to good use he he he he. Plus, since so many people have AM broadcast receivers _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: The Quest to save AM radio
The FCC is going forward with its plan to allow the r.f. noise floor to rise to unprecedented levels which will, of course adversely affect our hobby. Mike, I didn't see anything in the article that suggested a rise in the RF noise floor. Current FCC regulations are pretty much in line with international requirements for unintended emissions from electrical and electronic gear. When we have noise emissions problems, they're usually caused by poor enforcement. The article is mainly concerned about the demise of AM radio because of falling revenues and competition from other media, namely FM and the Internet. 73, Brad KV5V _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: The Quest to save AM radio
On 09/10/2013 02:57 PM, Mike Armstrong wrote: Brad, *I* say GOOD, let them kill AM broadcast and give the band to US. we will put it to good use he he he he. Plus, since so many people have AM broadcast receivers, it will be like automatic advertising for Amateur Radio.. and that rumors of ham radio's demise, as a hobby, were a bit premature. LOL LOL. Mike A AB7ZU (as opposed to the Mike you were referring to below... Mike L) :) :) Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 10, 2013, at 9:47, Brad Rehm bradr...@gmail.com wrote: So... Topband would extend from about 500 kc to 2 mc. 73, Bill KU8H _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: The Quest to save AM radio
Mike, et al., I wasn't aware of the FCC inquiry, but I'll do some checking on line. I'll also talk with the compliance rules guru at the EMC lab where I was an engineer for some years. But we should clear up a potential for misunderstanding here. When we talk about allowing the noise floor noise to rise, this suggests broadband noise emissions limits would be raised. Typical sources of this kind of noise are switching power supplies, digital devices, and UWB communications devices. Last time I checked, Ultra-WideBand systems are required to be bandwidth-limited (using simple filters), and they typically raise the noise floor in the UHF and higher parts of the spectrum. So power supplies and digital devices (computers, routers, etc.) would be the main culprits, but I don't understand how you could exempt ham receivers from a rule concerning them. Nothing can be exempted from noise that covers up everything. We should also wonder how manufacturers might build a more robust receiver. When the noise floor rises, weak signals are covered up. Yes, you can narrow the channel bandwidth, but this typically reduces audio quality. If ham radio receivers were big broadband emitters, they would certainly reduce their own weak signal sensitivity. This is the reason that in our compliance testing we rarely saw broadband emissions, conducted or radiated, in receivers of any kind, much less ham radio receivers or transceivers. Their most common problem was radiated narrowband emissions, and we wouldn't want to see the FCC granting any exemptions from NB requirements. So here's the question: What kind of exemption has been floated? Just curious. And BTW, I wouldn't want to see AM radio go away. Just drive through the high country of west Texas and you'll see how important low-cost, low-power AM radio is to the folks who live there. Satellite radio isn't going to be interested in broadcasting the daily price for pork bellies or the traders' show for Dalton, Texas or for any of the other small towns that rely on AM radio. Brad KV5V On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Bill Cromwell wrcromw...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/10/2013 02:57 PM, Mike Armstrong wrote: Brad, *I* say GOOD, let them kill AM broadcast and give the band to US. we will put it to good use he he he he. Plus, since so many people have AM broadcast receivers, it will be like automatic advertising for Amateur Radio.. and that rumors of ham radio's demise, as a hobby, were a bit premature. LOL LOL. Mike A AB7ZU (as opposed to the Mike you were referring to below... Mike L) :) :) Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka On Sep 10, 2013, at 9:47, Brad Rehm bradr...@gmail.com wrote: So... Topband would extend from about 500 kc to 2 mc. 73, Bill KU8H _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: The Quest to save AM radio
But we should clear up a potential for misunderstanding here. When we talk about allowing the noise floor noise to rise, this suggests broadband noise emissions limits would be raised. Typical sources of this kind of noise are switching power supplies, digital devices, and UWB communications devices. Last time I checked, Ultra-WideBand systems are required to be bandwidth-limited (using simple filters), and they typically raise the noise floor in the UHF and higher parts of the spectrum. So power supplies and digital devices (computers, routers, etc.) would be the main culprits, but I don't understand how you could exempt ham receivers from a rule concerning them. Nothing can be exempted from noise that covers up everything. The linked article does not make much sense to me in perspective of HF down to the AM band and lower. The most common sources of noise, by far, are switching power supplies. A distant second are digital devices connected to long cables or large wiring systems. Of all the devices that cannot bother 160 or HF, or especially AM BC, smart phones and other digital handheld devices are near the very top. They are so small and have such low power they would not likely be noticed if hanging right on our antennas. I agree with other comments that the real issue, and it has been an issue since the 1980's, is lack of enforcement. We wanted deregulation and the Government out of our business, and certainly we got what we wanted with the FCC. :-) 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: The Quest to save AM radio
On 9/10/2013 4:40 PM, Tom W8JI wrote: I agree with other comments that the real issue, and it has been an issue since the 1980's, is lack of enforcement. We wanted deregulation and the Government out of our business, and certainly we got what we wanted with the FCC. Exactly right. Isn't small government wonderful? 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector
