View Full Version : FCC OK's WIDE AUDIO
wb6bnq
11-24-2004, 07:35 PM
Today, Wednessday November 24, 2004, the FCC published, via their Daily Digest, the results of NPRM RM-10740, "The Bandwidth Question."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Here is the link to the PDF file: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3661A1.pdf
It clearly goes in favor of the experimental aspect of Amateur Radio by declining to regulate based on bandwidth.
Bill.....WB6BNQ
So....why does the ARRL think it will?
(the question of the hour)
73
George
K3UD
All in all, a surprisingly level-headed and common sense decision by the FCC.
Basically, the decision says (1) experimentation is an important aspect of amateur radio, (2) existing requlations already prohibit intentional or malicious interference and (3) in the absence of traffic on adjacent frequencies, a per se restriction on bandwidth is contrary to the experimental role of amateur radio. #
It seems the FCC has a better understanding of what amateur radio encompasses than some of we do.
KD5VHK
11-27-2004, 05:53 AM
I think this is wonderful.
It shows that the FCC thinks things through very logicaly, and will not let the opinion of a scant few people who are obviously on a personal crusade, affect the rest of the hobby.
THANK YOU FCC!
73
KD5VHK
Kyle
I think the title of this thread is a bit misleading. #FCC #rejected proposed changes to Part 97 regs concerning emission bandwidth of SSB and AM signals. #Bottom line, they changed nothing and re-stated their position that the goals of the amateur service are best achieved with a great deal of flexibility in the transmitting equipment we can legally use. #They also made it clear with freedom comes responsibility and we are being held to a high standard for being good citizens inside our own community. #
It truly is a level-headed ruling. #And it sends a clear signal to those wanting more restrictions and regulations to satisfy their personal agendas. #A big win for the spirit of amateur radio!
73 Mike
W7DJM
11-27-2004, 04:03 PM
"""""""""It shows that the FCC thinks things through very logicaly, and will not let the opinion of a scant few people who are obviously on a personal crusade, affect the rest of the hobby."""""""""""
HAWWWWWWWWhahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahhaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
God, I can't believe somebody posted that. THIS decision, is coming from the same people who approved BPL?
KD5VHK
11-27-2004, 05:48 PM
Quote[/b] (W7DJM @ Nov. 27 2004,09:03)]"""""""""It shows that the FCC thinks things through very logicaly, and will not let the opinion of a scant few people who are obviously on a personal crusade, affect the rest of the hobby."""""""""""
HAWWWWWWWWhahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahhaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
God, I can't believe somebody posted that. # THIS decision, is coming from the same people who approved BPL?
You seem to misunderstand the situation.
BPL was/is supported by literally thousands of people (Including Pres W. himself), and hundreds of companies. All with millions of dollars.
This shot down proposal was introduced by TWO people with a personal agenda.
There are big differences you obvoiusly don't see. You can't even compare the two.
But I'm glad you had a good laugh.
73
KD5VHK
Kyle
W7DJM
11-27-2004, 09:30 PM
OF COURSE you can compare the two!!! That is in fact the entire point!! FCC decisions SHOULD BE made on their technical merit, not how much money it is going to make someone.
By the way, I doubt that if you knew the truth, that BPL was actually supported by "thousands" of people.
If you added up all the CEO's of the power companies,and other carpetbaggers out for a buck, I doubt very much that the true supporters was very many.
The FCC did not “approve wide audio”. #They refused to establish restrictive regulations upon us that were unnecessary. #I applaud them for this. #It is still up to us to operate responsibility. #
In our pursuit of better audio, we need to be considerate of other amateurs. #We don’t need to sound like two dog food cans with a string between them, but we also must consider others, and how crowded the band is at a given time. #I think most of us already do this.
Perhaps our League will dump their proposal.
Vy 73, Walt N9WB
ka7gkn
11-28-2004, 02:56 PM
The original petition was based upon ego and hate of a few Hams towards a group of Amateur operators.
There was no technical value what-so-ever. The FCC made the proper call.
Those of us improving the fidelity of SSB audio are growing as the manufacuter of high end radios indicate. Most use top of the line equipment and are critical of their signals.
We try not to cause QRM but education is required..if there is a QSO you don't start another one 1 or 2 khz within the passband. Of course there will be QRM -both ways-
There is plenty of room for everyone..and for those who make it a point to set up QSO's too close I'm sorry...you know 14.178 and 14.168 has become the audiophile area..please move to 14.225 and you won't be bothered ...This is the same thing as keeping away from 14.230 SSTV
ka7gkn
wb6bcn
11-28-2004, 06:12 PM
I must have been asleep when petition comments were being solicited. I did notice a name without a callsign: Could that be QRZ modorator Glen W. Zook?
Anyhow, I am happy the FCC shot it down.
n9lya
11-30-2004, 08:11 PM
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Nov. 26 2004,11:39)]So....why does the ARRL think it will?
(the question of the hour)
73
George
K3UD
What does the ARRL have to do with this proposal..
It was not anything the ARRL proposed..
73 jerry
Hi Jerry,
Actually this proposal could have an effect on the ARRL proposal. Did you read the R&O? It's short and when you read it think about what the ARRL wants to do with Bandwidth Based Bandplan. It's pretty clear the FCC in refusing to restrict (as the parties requested in this their petition) Amateurs to a particular bandwidth on SSB, they gave reasons that indicate the ARRL will have a tough road ahead with their proposal.
73
ke3tk
12-01-2004, 02:57 AM
The concept is very simple, Listen before you transmit. If you are
transmitting a wide audio signal, then listen first with a wide IF,
If you can't find a clear slice of band, dont' transmit. If you cause
QRM it doesn't matter if you did it with a 200Hz. data signal
or 10 Khz double sideband.
More rules are NOT what this hobby needs !!!
Rick
Quote[/b] (n9lya @ Nov. 30 2004,15:11)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Nov. 26 2004,11:39)]So....why does the ARRL think it will?
(the question of the hour)
73
George
K3UD
What does the ARRL have to do with this proposal..
It was not anything the ARRL proposed..
73 jerry
Jerry,
You are correct, the ARRL had nothing to do with this.
However I read it to mean that the FCC is still adhering to the concept that Amateur Radio should, to a very large extent, continue to be self regulating as to how the spectrum is used by various competing modes in the same band segments. As others have posted, common sense should prevail when you are operating.
As I understand the ARRL's initial bandwidth proposal, they were going to ask the FCC to use the force of federal regulation to make it happen. It does not seem that at present, the FCC in the mood to place more regulations on the ARS.
Of course, who really knows what the FCC might do in the long run.
73
George
K3UD
W9JCM
12-01-2004, 06:42 PM
Woo Hoo about time.. thanks FCC this is a good thing for use audio buffs
W9JCM
12-01-2004, 06:51 PM
Quote[/b] (ka7gkn @ Nov. 27 2004,08:56)]There is plenty of room for everyone..and for those who make it a point to set up QSO's too close I'm sorry...you know 14.178 and 14.168 has become the audiophile area..please move to 14.225 and you won't be bothered ...This is the same thing as keeping away from 14.230 SSTV
ka7gkn
KA7GKN those freqs are not yours I dont see a bandplan for hifi audio. So if someone is on 14.178 before you to bad its there freq. Its not a audiophile area. Its everyones band. Just like if they are on top of you guys say 2.5 k away u have the right to ask them to move some cause of the interference. I run audio but refuse to bother others if I am bashing in on someone i move or tighten it up easy as that. But you cannot say its a audiophile area its not. There is no designation fpr it.
wd8bil
12-02-2004, 08:10 PM
Quote[/b] ]There is plenty of room for everyone..and for those who make it a point to set up QSO's too close I'm sorry...you know 14.178 and 14.168 has become the audiophile area..please move to 14.225 and you won't be bothered ...This is the same thing as keeping away from 14.230 SSTV
Good luck with that !!!!
Listen in the sections known for AM. We've been fighting QRM from SSBers firing up 1, 2, and 3khz away from QSOs for 30 years !!
Again, personal agenda types. AM, in their mind, SHOULD be banned so its ok to QRM !!!
Most don't know splatter or receiver generated spurious from a hole in the ground !!
n9lya
12-03-2004, 12:11 AM
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Dec. 01 2004,07:35)]Quote[/b] (n9lya @ Nov. 30 2004,15:11)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Nov. 26 2004,11:39)]So....why does the ARRL think it will?
(the question of the hour)
73
George
K3UD
What does the ARRL have to do with this proposal..
It was not anything the ARRL proposed..
73 jerry
Jerry,
You are correct, the ARRL had nothing to do with this.
However I read it to mean that the FCC is still adhering to the concept that Amateur Radio should, to a very large extent, continue to be self regulating as to how the spectrum is used by various competing modes in the same band segments. As others have posted, common sense should prevail when you are operating.
As I understand the ARRL's initial bandwidth proposal, they were going to ask the FCC to use the force of federal regulation to make it happen. It does not seem that at present, the FCC in the mood to place more regulations on the ARS.
Of course, who really knows what the FCC might do in the long run.
73
George
K3UD
Hi George,
Thanks for clearification... I was confussed..
I hope they do get wise and not agree to teh ARRL Bandwidth proposal..
Happy Hollidays..
73 Jerry n9lya
K0RFD
12-03-2004, 01:32 AM
Funny, I didn't see anything in the decision that "OK'd" wide audio. As a matter of fact, the decision reaffirmed the "good amateur practice" clause of Part 97.
Specifically, here's what the FCC said in paragraph 9 of their ruling:
"Further, we believe that our existing rules -- including the provisions that no amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice, and that emissions outside the necessary bandwidth must not cause interference to operations on adjacent frequencies -- are adequate to address any noncompliant practices by amateur operators."
What the decision means is that the FCC didn't see any need to create a whole new set of rules to protect the majority of rule-abiding amateurs against a few pigs who use too much bandwidth. If you use more bandwidth than you need to get your traffic to another station, if your selfishly piggish appropriation of extra bandwidth interferes with other operators, you're still a pig. No new rules are required to define you as such. The rules are already on the books.
Quote[/b] (K0RFD @ Dec. 02 2004,20:32)]What the decision means is that the FCC didn't see any need to create a whole new set of rules to protect the majority of rule-abiding amateurs against a few pigs who use too much bandwidth. #If you use more bandwidth than you need to get your traffic to another station, if your selfishly piggish appropriation of extra bandwidth interferes with other operators, you're still a pig. #No new rules are required to define you as such. #The rules are already on the books.
Not to start another CW vs the world thread but If this were taken literally it might be interpted as saying that any mode but the narrowest is really hogging spectrum. For most amateurs on HF the mode needing the least bandwidth is CW. Beyond that, bandwidth becomes rather relative.
Best to all for the Holiday Season!
73
George
K3UD
wa3vjb
12-03-2004, 02:22 PM
I would like to post support for Bud's frustration (page 2, WD8BIL), where a group who enjoys a well-regarded place as a nostalgic specialty in the hobby occasionally faces catcalls and deliberate QRM from those who "don't get it."
These people need to understand that the presence of an authorized mode and activity does not need some sort of "band plan" from Newington or any other group in the hobby. That's the beauty of the relaxed coordination seen on 160 meters. #This band allows the greatest flexibility to "fill" spectrum where a slot is available.
Those who participate in any given mode or activity must simply comply with FCC rules on purity of signal and against deliberate interference. When violated, these two parameters are fully actionable under existing enforcement mechanisms.
To a lesser extent, the same possibilities exist within the "phone" and "cw" portions of the segregated shortwave ham bands. Those who violate the FCC rules mentioned above do so at their own peril, NOT at the risk of successfully pushing out contestors, hi-fi SSBers, digital buffs, or anyone else who doesn't fit their narrow view of what's "supposed" to be in a given blank space on the dial.
The tools under today's Part 97 to keep us in line are employed if and after self-policing fails, and escalate to include volunteer "Official Observer" functions and those more formally carried out by FCC counsel Riley Hollingsworth.
It remains disappointing that the fellows in Newington who refuse to szht-can their threatened bandwidth petition are failing to see the handwriting on the wall. #Prospects for their scheme have dimmed with the latest FCC ruling, and already were poor because of a lack of established need.
Then there's the matter of the ARRL's refusing to interact, publicly, regarding the widespread, eloquent expressions of opposition by members of the various ad hoc committees in this forum and elsewhere who have been reviewing the draft proposal.
kc8aon
12-03-2004, 03:02 PM
WIDE AUDIO ? Folks, we are not broadcasters, we are communicators ! We don't need WIDE AUDIO to communicate pure and simple. All that wide audio does is use up bandwidth which is not needed to convey information. If you want wide audio, stick with AM on the known AM frequencies and everyone will be happy. The purpose of SSB is to cut down on the bandwidth need to communicate.
My $.02 worth !
Rick
KC8AON
Quote[/b] (kc8aon @ Dec. 03 2004,10:02)]WIDE AUDIO ? #Folks, we are not broadcasters, we are communicators ! #We don't need WIDE AUDIO to communicate pure and simple. #All that wide audio does is use up bandwidth which is not needed to convey information. #If you want wide audio, stick with AM on the known AM frequencies and everyone will be happy. #The purpose of SSB is to cut down on the bandwidth need to communicate.
My $.02 worth !
Rick
KC8AON
While you are correct in the statement concerning SSB, the fact remains that experimentation is one of the tenants of amateur radio. In general, should someone wish to experiment and has open bandwidth available during the experimental period, they have every right to perform their experiments and carry on their communications. They run a foul of the law when they use a frequency where the entire bandwidth they plan to use is not clear and the wider than normal signal results in splatter interference to adjacent users. We all share the available spectrum and we can not assume that we have any give right to a particular frequency, bandplan or no. We need to be more tolerant of others that are working on systems of communications for their own interests just as we are.
Ken
wa3vjb
12-03-2004, 04:18 PM
Ken, sorry, but you've made a common error in your use of the word "splatter."
The FCC can immediately act against interference in a passband that's receiving the products of overmodulation and distortion from a nearby transmitted signal. This is traditionally referred to as "splatter."
There is no technical violation from a clean phone signal that happens to include an audio response that extends into a nearby receiver's passband. #Such interference is not "splatter," but can be acted against if the size of the transmitted passband is not curtailed to avoid deliberate interference.
It also may be judged a problem only for nearby but late arriving operators, who fail to allow adequate room for the clean, transmitted signal to continue operating on what had been a vacant, adequate spot on the dial. The burden is then on the newcomers to avoid the legitimate user of that spot on the dial.
Hope this clarifies for you.
Quote[/b] ]It remains disappointing that the fellows in Newington who refuse to szht-can their threatened bandwidth petition are failing to see the handwriting on the wall.
With recurring use of terms like flexibility and cooperation, #FCC elaborated on their preference for no explicit transmitter bandwidths and voluntary band plans. On both topics, FCC stayed true to the intent and spirit of amateur radio.
On transmitters: #FCC doesn't intend to get in the business of regulating emission bandwidth of amateur transmitters. #ARRL's opposing petition creates a compliance and enforcement nightmare, plus the potential of making some equipment illegal to use. #
On band plans: #FCC encourages the amateur community to use voluntary plans that give us the flexibility to "reallocate" spectrum based on actual operating interests [rather than philosophy or agenda]. #For the most part, except for 160 meters, we have allowed HF band plans to be frozen for 75 years at a time and FCC is telling us that is not necessary with voluntary plans. #ARRL's opposing petition is for more regulation and government involvement in the affairs of amateur radio. #Their plan locks down chunks of spectrum for specific bandwidths with no future flexibility in the event that too much or too little spectrum was assigned. #It boils down to rigidity vs. flexibility. #I know which lane I'd rather pick. ##
If ARRL is so stubborn as to ignore the clear signals from FCC, their petition deserves to be publicly dismantled come comment time.
73 Mike
Quote[/b] (W8MW @ Dec. 03 2004,11:57)]If ARRL is so stubborn as to ignore the clear signals from FCC, their petition deserves to be publicly dismantled come comment time.
73 Mike
And it will be!
Ken
Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Dec. 03 2004,11:18)]Ken, sorry, but you've made a common error in your use of the word "splatter."
Thank you, I do understand the terminology and your are correct. I just was making an erroreous statement.
Should stations employing wider than normal SSB be using frequencies without causing interference to adjacent activity, they have the right to continue their activity. Should they try to use a slot which is too narrow for their needs, then they are causing harmful interference and any action that results is justified. This holds true for any system that is trying to use space that is too narrow for the intended communications.
Ken
wd8bil
12-03-2004, 07:25 PM
Quote[/b] ] This holds true for any system that is trying to use space that is too narrow for the intended communications.
Like Jerry trying to park his Lincoln where only a VW bug will fit !!!
But its not right for the VW owner to demand the Lincoln get outta dodge cause he don't like its size !!
Quote[/b] ]We need to be more tolerant of others that are working on systems of communications for their own interests just as we are.
Ken I really like the way you put that. #
A trap some amateurs fall into is believing the next guy's personal interests are not as noble or worthy or efficient or "important" as ours. #Frankly, there are a lot of specialty interests in modes and operating styles
that will never appeal to me. #But I think it's great that amateur radio is big enough and diverse enough to allow each of us to pursue individual interests.
One size doesn't fit all. Never has. #Never will.#
73 Mike
ab8td
12-04-2004, 06:09 AM
The ARRL's regulation-by-bandwidth was not _intended_ to be the techncal limit on signals specs. The fact that it could be interpreted that way is a flaw due to its "proposal" nature, and the fact that it was spearheaded by one special interest group and published for general comment without review by the other groups in the ARRL.
The bandplan by bandwidth, for better or worse, was only supposed to determine how the types signals were grouped. The technical limits are supposed to be another issue, though from how it is currently written, that is far from clear.
Whether 4 khz audiophile SSB belongs in with the 3 khz vanilla SSB, or the 6 khz AM segment is also unclear in the ARRL proposal. My take is that it should be in the SSB allocation, as the modes are compatable. A pure AM station would not be able to ID or QSO with an SSB station if he were causing interference. This is also the problem with automated digital stations in the SSB band - even if their bandwidth is the same.
AB8TD
w7auw
12-07-2004, 09:22 AM
3.6 khz. for ssb makes for some pretty fine audio on any band.
Quote[/b] (ke7auw @ Dec. 07 2004,04:22)]3.6 khz. #for ssb makes for some pretty fine audio on any band.
It isn't that the FCC has okayed wideband SSB. It is more the fact that the FCC has indicated that the experimental nature of our service makes setting specific bandwidth limits for specific modes unnecessary and not in keeping this nature.
3.6Khz is fine as long as you consider those operating on either side of you. I don't think wideband signals are a problem until the band is very crowded and you attempt operate in a manner that results in your bandwidth causing interference to adjacent stations.
The rule says that you must not use more bandwidth than necessary for intended communications. You are the one that determines the necessary bandwidth. Since you are experimenting with Hi-Fi SSB you are entitled to use the bandwidth you require within good amateur practice.
Ken
Quote[/b] ]FCC has indicated that the experimental nature of our service makes setting specific bandwidth limits for specific modes unnecessary and not in keeping this nature.
Yes, that's a major factor in their ruling. #Although plug n play is pervasive these days, FCC still recognizes the core values of the amateur service which include experimentation and pursuit of personal interests in the radio art. #An amateur license is really quite a privilege.
Another significant point made in the ruling is amateur radio is different from channelized radio services. #In those services channels are regulated, spacing between channels is regulated and emission bandwidth of transmitters is regulated. #It's a rigid system to protect authorized users of given channels from interference. #
The writer of this ill-fated petition tried to portray amateur radio as a channelized service needing the same interference protection and thus the regulation of transmitter bandwidth. #That argument was defective from the get go because all amateur spectrum is shared. #When you eliminate the presumption of one station being "more authorized" than another, you eliminate any basis for regulated channels, channel spacing or transmitter bandwidth. #Less regulation equals more flexibility and the price of admission is play nice with each other.
FCC summed it up nicely:
"The Petition also fails to demonstrate that a deviation from the Commission’s longstanding practice of allowing operating flexibility within the amateur service community #-- is either warranted or necessary."
73 Mike
KD5VHK
12-08-2004, 06:06 PM
Evidently the one's responsible for starting all this, lack the intestinal fortitude to face the public they tried to influence/change. I have not see a single post here from either of them, yet one of them felt it necessary to try and defend them both in private.
What he really did was provide the evidence of the reason why they did this, for all to see.
Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems to me that, according to this email, not only are we supposed to conform to other peoples personal whims. But, we are no longer allowed, as Americans, to draw, and express an opinion based on obversation, or from actually thinking for ourselves. We have people like is guy to do it for us.
Sorry if my personal opinions have, at any time, past, present, or future, offended anyone. I realize that thinking for one's self is not what this country is all about any more. But hey, I'm old fashioned. I can't help it.
Here is a copy of an email I received from one of them.
With my reply following.
Of course the names of the guilty are omitted.
73 & Peace (tis the season)
**********
Kyle,
Just read your posts on QRZ.com regarding the motivation that ---(name omitted) and I had when we filed the rulemaking petition. # There was no personal agenda. #Many hundreds of amateurs were being subjected to signals at 20/9 with up to 9 kHz or more bandwidth on the crowded 20 meter band. #
---(name omitted) and I were attacked, vilified, called names, jammed, ridiculed, etc. #We can take that. #We stepped out and said to the FCC what thousands of other hams would like to have said.
So, how do YOU know it was a "personal agenda?" #
I hope all the hams who are dancing up and down for glee will enjoy being splattered upon and wiped out with they come within 10 kc of such stations as KA0KA, W2ONV, NU9N, W3OZ and others who will now selfishly crank the bandwidth of their signals back up. #
The ruling from the FCC is from the same governmental agency that is excited about and which condones BPL. #
If you write any more opinions about the ruling, try to at least have a basis in fact for what you write and don't include characterizations of ***(name omitted) and me, neither of whom you know or about whom you know anything.
----(name omitted)
----/-(Callsign omittted)
********
And here is my reply.
************
----(name omitted),
Your very reply you made here in your email shows it was a personal agenda. Your examples of bandwidth used are obviously exaggerated. And, I seriously doubt professionally verified with accurate equipment.
Plus, me, the FCC, and obviously a vast majority of others see it as being just that. Where are those thousands of other hams you speak of now? And they certainly didn't say much when it was open for comment.
Just because you were personally offended by a few operators, you feel you have the right to make the whole American Ham community play by the rules you think they should play by.
My original opinion of you was based solely on the petition you submitted, and from hearing you on the air. Thank you for providing the "basis in fact " you were speaking of.
Including the callsigns of the persons you have your vendetta against. Rest assured your email will be forwarded to them.
To me you sound like one of these people who think everyone should do as you think they should, and then, has to whine a little more when people don't agree with you. Once again proving the type of personality that is being dealt with here.
Now I know you and ---(name omitted) even better. Thank you for proving my opinion of you. (Like I needed the help)
Be sure this email will be posted on QRZ.com as an example of why the FCC struck your personal vendetta down.
Thanks again,
Kyle
I've been quiet on this one because I've stirred the BW pot a few other times. #However, I just wanted to be added to the optimistic list here. #I'm quite thrilled with the FCC verbage and you all have stated better than I could have the rebuttles to the surprisingly few that have chimed in here complaining. #It *IS* the vast majority of Amateurs that follow the rules (at any BW) and the very few squeaky wheels that need greased.
Thank you all that have stated so elequently the proper way to use the bands. #Frequency ownership needs to be squashed out -- I'm so sick of people complaining about "intentional QRM" by ESSB'ers when they were in QSO first!!
Same goes for AM'ers -- we have a group down in the Southeast that consistently starts QRM'ing 3880 AM QSOs on 3878 regardless of how long before them we were on frequency. #When politely told of their interference, their answer is that they've "been on that freq for xx years, and you wide AM'ers have no right to ask us to QSY". #Totally against the rules, and they simply don't care. #100% trash in my book. #That kind childish behavior gives us all bad reputation, and 99% of the time, we simply move. #I love what I've been seeing in this thread, though!! #Again, a big "THANKS" to vast majority of the level headed folks that chimed in!! #
I'll shut up now...
Joe, N3JI
Lewisville, TX
I had not intended to get involved in this tread as it is really water under the bridge, but because another ham KD5VHK Kyle was kind enough to send me an email he had gotten from one of the “un-named” hams and that ham identified me as one of the very bad guys, I thought I would at least take a minute here to defend myself.
First I don’t know what I have ever done to either of the gentlemen named, but obviously I have done something so bad that they have to listed me as an offender and just a real stinky fellow. At no time to my memory do I ever remember either of them coming to the frequency I was using and telling me that I was QRMing them. There have been plenty of drive-bys I call them, by hams who tell me I am wide, like I didn’t know. If they identify and tell me where their QSO is, so I can tell if I am really interfering, I will and always have either QRTed or QSYed so that I do not interfere. But as it is in most cases, there is no adjacent QSO in progress, just someone who wants to fight on interfere with my legitimate QSO. At that point I just continue in my QSO and work in ESSB.
Second, I spend much of my time on the air running a very narrow Yaesu FT-1000MP chasing DX. I just contacted what is for me my last country needed for working them all in the DXCC program. 341 confirmed. I have been a DXer for many more years than I have been working in ESSB. Both of the un-named gentlemen have long and distinguished careers in amateur radio. Both have contributed to the betterment of the hobby, I commend them for their service and do not object to their enjoyment of the activities they participate in like DXing. I would not ridicule or belittle what they are doing. However I would ask for the same respect for me when I am trying to better the hobby by improving audio. I have a web page which I maintain that has as its main goal the encouragement and advice to others who are trying to make their own audio better no matter if it is wide, or narrow. (To a limit) So far over 40,000 hams from all over the world have viewed the page and I get several messages a day asking for help and advice. The pursuit of better audio, which sometimes means that the band pass is widened a little, is not just a United States thing. There are as many if not many more hams in other countries that are not governed by the FCC who are trying to improve their audio and believe me they are broader than anything I or others in this country are doing. How many devices do you think have been sold to the amateur community expressly for the purpose of improved audio in the past few years? You will have to as Behringer, W2IHY, Heil, and many other companies, but I bet it is in the many thousands. Even the very casual ham finds it a necessity to get a new desk mic so he or she can sound a little better. We don’t all like the click, click of the plastic hand mic. If you do that’s OK too.
Third, I am not jumping for joy, or particularly happy that these gentlemen were somehow punished or beaten down. They have legitimate concerns, in my opinion wrong and apparently in the opinion of the FCC not warranted at this time, but concerns. They expressed their opinion and it was not accepted. So what? Let’s just let it go. Remember we are civilized and try our best to make the enjoyment of this great hobby our own responsibility. Let us not detract and get stuck in the OLD MAN mud, but look to the future and try to add something new and fun. We all know there is too much talk about how old, sick and tired we are on the bands, lets talk about something fun and lets do it without interfering with each other. It can be done.
73 W3OZ the wizard of OZ http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
wd8bil
12-14-2004, 12:44 PM
Quote[/b] ]THIS decision, is coming from the same people who approved BPL?
Its impossible to be wrong all the time !!!
Even a monkey will pound out a real word on the keyboard once in a while !
VE3UUH
01-13-2005, 12:56 AM
I do not see where transmiting an SSB signal over 3khz has any positive benefit for Amateur Radio. Hiding the stroking of ones ego about how much bandwidth he/she can occupy in the name of so-called hi-fi audio is laughable, explain to me where the experimentation is taking place! Then explain how this is of some use or benefit to Amateur Radio. If some ham had created hi-fi audio in a digital technology that would actually take up less bandwidth but could be digitally reproduced at the transmitter in full stage hi-fi audio then something useful would have been accomplished. As it stands now there are those who may have worked in radio, recording studios who are trying to reproduce this type of audio with a wack of radio mods, tons of equalizers and flippin doodads and to what end. Then there is KA0KA wannabees with 6 foot wide signals cutting up the band. If you want a recording studio or be WNBC go and work there. Get on AM, FM and wide-band until your hear's content. Unless you can get the same audio results in less khz there is no benefit to Amateur Radio. Invent something new after 15 years plus surely you must have twiddled the knobs enough. Everyone is begining to sound the same. Any newcomers listening to this daily on 14.178 for the last 2 decades must be in a comma by now, same conversation almost every morning. We will only know they are getting old when they start talking about the spleens, cancer, gallbladders, kidneys all in wonderful wide band hi-fi audio. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
wa3vjb
01-14-2005, 09:52 PM
Bob,
You offer up the familiar but shortsighted opinion, now further discredited by the FCC's rejection of this petition, that "less" bandwidth consumption is "better" regardless of prevailing occupancy or conditions.
Do you also feel contests should be outlawed because of all the spectrum they consume? #Perhaps there should no longer be a "DX Window" because the zone lies fallow most of the time?
Sarcastically, maybe we actually should consider proposing a ban on "space shuttle audio" that hurts the ears, undercuts intelligibility, and waters down the enjoyment of listening to voices that sound human, on the radio. No more carbon microphones, my friend, how about your ox getting gored?
If your comments were somehow in the context of a channelized service where maximum band loading was the goal, then maybe you would have credibility.
But this is a hobby, and the people who use the band are on equal status in claiming a spot on the dial, regardless of mode or activity. We must accept a certain amount of unintentional interference as we voluntarily coordinate our modes and activities on shared space.
The rules and presumably protection that you seek already exist -- at least south of the border in the U.S. Our federal regulators can immediately act against signals that are not technically clean, and against those who would cause deliberate interference.
VE3UUH
01-16-2005, 09:21 PM
i do not give a crap where people are on the dial and yes they are as entitled to occupy band space as anyone else is. My problem is when you can still hear someone 10, 12 khz up the band and when you mention this you are a lid or have inferior equipment, stupid or unable to use filters etc. Most of the 178 crowd are quite "normal", sound good ,are respectful of the enjoyment of others. There are those we all know and love who have no regard for the enjoyment of others and have been cited for violations. I do not give a whet slap what your audio sounds like at the end of the day or how many gadgets you have to get there. In a free world you can spend your way to audio bliss that is fine, contests do not bother me it gives life to the bands. When so-called experimentation constanty disrupts the rights, enjoyment of others who have equal access then there is a problem. no one explained how hi-fi audio was enhancing the hobby, bringing forth any"new" technology" As I stated if some-one invents, compacts hi-fi audio into a digital format that could be reproduced at the other end with all it's hi-fi qualities that would really be ground breaking. Until that day a litlle respect and regard for others will go along way to having harmony and mutual respect on the band.
kb2vxa
03-13-2005, 02:41 PM
Hi guys,
After reading all this confusion I would just like to voice my opinion. I see no particular problems other than misunderstanding with either the existing band plans or the ones based on bandwidth. Actually QRM should be alleviated under the bandwidth proposal but too many can't see it.
There is NO intention of reducing bandwidth, only shifting modes into slots accordingly. If reassignment with regard to bandwidth does come about I'd like to see the AM windows preserved as such and a rule protecting it from other modes. Far too long have the "slopbucketeers" been disrespecting the AM window on 75M where much experimenting is done.
I have loved listening to the "yayemmers" on 75 and 40 for MANY years and the military transmitters and retuned AM broadcast units sure sound great. The only spot on the dial where broadcast equipment gets a chance to shine is on Top Band where signals are S9+ with b'cast quality audio. I guess that's why it's called angel music.
While this may be a stretch, bandwidth assignment according to band has been the norm as long as I can remember. If we can live with THAT I don't see why all the fuss over HF. For you hi-fi buffs, try wideband FM stereo on 70cM if you really want something to crow about. FYI, I know someone who experimented with the Kahn AM stereo system on 160M and when through adjusted the exciter for enhanced sideband to protect an adjacent highly used frequency from QRM. Oh, if you don't know what I'm writing about you're not a broadcast engineer. (;->)
73 de Warren KB2VXA