I have to agree,.... multiple thread posts on basicly the same issue,..................... nothing to see here
Originally Posted by N0AZZ
I'm pretty sure it's not. I had this question in the past and have the FCC letter to show (Google is your friend... look at some of the ALE forums to learn more) that you can legally use any about bandwidth you want, all else being by the book. 50k wide is fine, or more, as long as it's 300 baud (or "symbol rate" which I think is still not clear.) You could, technically, take up a whole digital sub-band with one signal, again, assuming all else is legal (power, QRM, your license, etc.). Of course, a lot of people would be upset by that!
Originally Posted by WN9HJW
We can do a lot more with a lot less, as it's already getting crowded out there. As the cycle and future ones peak, we won't have a place to park anyone if everyone is driving a lorry.
(sample videos... some are 2k+ wide!)
Just what does that really mean? Certainly many hams use the "latest technology," but that technology should fit into the current regulations, not seeking exemptions to run higher bandwidth modes where presently prohibited. The "latest technology" should be aimed to reducing required bandwidth, and reducing the possibility of interference to other stations, not just allowing modes that can potentially cause more interference on HF.
Originally Posted by AG6JU
I have no problem with "transmission speed" as long as bandwidth is taken into account The loophole/bad-definition we have now is why we are "blessed" with ssb-wide signals on a cw/data band like 30 meters.
No you can't. It would be a violation or 97.307(a).
Originally Posted by K2NCC
You are incorrect. For the most part, it's really up to me to determine maximum "necessary". I can do as wide a signal as I want, so long as it's in the digital portion. If memory serves, we have a 150k slice on 20M. Which means I can operate a mode that's 150k wide. But I'm not going to bother with this again. Bandwidth vs Speed has been beat to death. *IF* I run across the letter, I'll post it so you can see how the FCC says what I (and so many others) already have.
Originally Posted by N2RJ
Here's one I found from a few years ago Ralph. Thanks to a post by Bonnie, someone who I hate to quote, but in spite of that, still has some good info:
See the FCC order May 7, 2008 denying the 'Digital Stone Age' petition: http://www.hflink.com/fcc/digitalsto...e_petition.PDF In that FCC order, [paragraph 10] FCC said:
"Our rules do not specifically limit the permissible bandwidth for RTTY and data emissions in the amateur HF bands." FCC explained [paragraph 10] further: "We believe that these rules provide amateur service licensees the flexibility to develop new technologies within the spectrum authorized for the various classes of licensees, while protecting other users of the spectrum from harmful interference. We also believe that imposing a maximum bandwidth limitation on data emissions would result in a loss of flexibility to develop and improve technologies as licensees' operating interests change, new technologies are incorporated, and frequency bands are reallocated."
I think our bandwidth SHOULD be limited, although I believe perhaps wider than some... but more so, I think our data rate should be unlimited.
In all fairness, on can do a lot in 10 years. Or half that. Or one year. It's not the years you put into something, but the HOURS!
Originally Posted by NY7Q
Tenure in this hobby has little to do with skill. Kind of like driving a vehicle or working on computers (or a thousand other fields). Some times people think having 30 years at something might imply a certain skill or experience level. Often it doesn't!