FCC activates the Bandwidth process

Larry,

Thanks, this is the first real technical dialog any CCT member has offered. The others have all been defending the idea to abolish all mode and bandwidth restrictions, or accusing others of releasing bad information.

About the FCC.....

RM proceedings are not intended to be a forum where we post an idea and see what technical input others have. We cannot depend on the FCC taking a bad idea, reading hundreds of pages of submissions, and then correcting flaws in the original proposal.

Years ago the FCC was technical. The fellow at the very top was an amateur, and the people all through the FCC were largely engineers. That's changed now. For the most part people at the FCC don't understand radio or radio communications.

Everyone should keep that in mind when we think they will make a good technical choice.

The CCT Proposal

As a quick overview, here is my take on what you did.

The CCT conducted a questionable (at best) "study" of amateur activity. It was almost certainly flawed because counting the number of stations active at any time isn't possible with a spectrum analyzer, it isn't possible at one location (particularly an urban location) or region, and it would require at least several years of data.

A well-publicized open opinion poll would be much more accurate, and could be easily done.

CW activity probably runs about 40% according to what I read, but that does NOT mean CW should have 40% of available spectrum.

The fact is neither the CCT nor I actually know how our resources should be divided between wide and narrow modes, so neither of us can comment on that division based on accurate information. That division has to be based on what the majority of users want, and filtered through accurate technical analysis of how to meet that need.

Mixing Bandwidths and Modes

This is a no-brainer. Wide modes and narrow modes cannot be mixed. It has been this way since time began, and there is NOTHING in equipment that has changed to permit this.

As a matter of fact, it has gotten worse. My Collins KWM-2 typically measured -50dB PEP for third order off-channel IM products, a 756PRO and most other rigs measure
-30dB PEP or less for off-channel IM3.

Worse yet new SSB rigs are just like the spectrum displays of Bud's AM transmitter. They roll off at a very slow rate compared to older gear. If we only consider the 5th order products problematic we would have to keep the SSB rig at least 10Khz from weak narrow bandwidth signals. I can often hear SSB splatter from strong LSB stations on 1843 kHz down to 1835 kHz. The dominate problems are rigs like the 756PRO, look at the ARRL lab tests and you will see why.

By far transmitters are the problem compared to receivers, and it isn't getting better with time.

Remember these rules of thumb for IM3 bandwidth:

The maximum frequency spacing of new intermodulation products is the difference between the lowest and highest pitched tones modulating the transmitter.

The significant energy bandwidth of a SSB transmitter with -30dB PEP IM products is 3 times the modulated frequency bandwidth!

SSB Splatter

If we limited speech to 300-3000 Hz the IM trash and main signal would occupy about 8-9kHz.

AM transmitters are even worse. If Bud had not removed the spectrum plots of his transmitter, we could look and see this is true. Even AM transmitters I've worked on to limit bandwidth and improve modulated stage linearity are wide.

Boatanchors

In the days when KWM-2's were around, some GG amplifiers degraded the KWM-2 IM perfromance. Today a YaeKenAlinCom rig is so bad that a triode GG amp has insignificant effect on IM products. Remember Eimac data is dB below one tone, while ARRL data is dB below PEP.
The ARRL data tends to make IM look 6dB better than it is by commercial standards.

The primary exceptions to insignificant BW degradation when run through properly tuned linears are tetrode linear amps and transistor amps running at low voltage. Both low voltage solid state amps and grid driven tetrode amps are gaining popularity, and their raw IM performance is so low they often make a noticeable to significant degradation is IM products.

A QST review showed the cheaply designed Ameritron AL-800H having more than 10dB less IM products than ETO and QRO tetrode amps!

The excessively strong off channel modulation byproducts common to SSB and AM transmitters, the inability of the vast maority of people to be able to measure and control them, and the fact that wider bandwidth receivers have less useful signal detection level for a fixed external noise level are the reasons wide multi-tone or voice modes cannot be allowed to move into narrow mode sub-bands.

SSB and voice wasn't historically excluded from narrow sub-bands while CW was allowed full reign on all frequencies because of percentage of use or prejudice, it was set up that way because people making the rules understood the effects of mixing modes.

I cover the mixing mode issues at:

Mixing Modes

It's my opinion the CTT, had they looked at this in an open forum with external input from people of diverse backgrounds, would have realized how seriously flawed their concept was and never submitted the RM as they did.

As it is written right now, RM-11305 will destroy narrow mode operation.

The destruction of narrow modes, along with a Google search to see what forums and interests most Think Tank members shared, is why I formed the opinion RM-11305 was designed to eliminate or seriously discourage narrow mode activity. Intentional or not, if adopted RM-11305 would turn the bands into a form of licensed freeband CB.

Experimentation with spectrum conserving modes would vanish and be replaced with an effort to use more and more bandwidth, since the wider informational bandwidth signal is almost always signifciantly less impacted by narrow frequency QRM.

This is where my problem is Larry. It isn't what Bud, you , or anyone else does on the air. It's the technical fact that wide voice modes have low level garbage sticking out a few to several channel widths, wide bandwidth receivers can't hear narrow signals well, and cross modes can't communicate.

A true "Think Tank" would have solved or minimized these problems before submitting to the FCC.

The best thing for amateur radio would be for the "Think Tank" to withdraw their petition and rewrite it with the input of people from dissimilar views, and a better understanding of how the radio systems we use work.

The reason I posted Bud's attitude statement wasn't to pick at Bud, but rather to show that people who think they can plop down first and stay there will be the very people who ruin amateur radio. That isn't just Bud, it is a very common attitude.

This is why historically wide modes are fenced from narrow modes, and the widermode is always significatly more restricted in available frequency. It's at the very core of why our mode regulations are written as they are.

If we are going to clean up or stop the backwards slide of modulation related odd-order IM product perfromance, we have to establish a guideline for -40 and -80dB points. While the FCC doesn't need to enforce it or monitor it on a daily basis, it would serve as the referee in a dispute.

"I was here before you" doesn't work when we mix modes or move a voice signal near weak CW signals, because the voice guy doesn't often understand how bad his transmitter is.

The Think Tank made a very serious technical mistake. Too bad you didn't solicite outside opinions in well-publicized open forums before creating a plan that will destroy amateur radio as we know it today. RM-11305 is asking the FCC to consider a rule change that will ruin the hobby we all share.

I really wish you would have thought this through before submitting RM-11305.

73 Tom

 

Tom,

Again Tom we have a difference of opinion of just how the proposal process works. I accept that you are much more inclined to be cautious in making a proposal. Under the circumstances, I see that caution has been observed and it is my opinion that we have waited way too long to request the change that 305 does.

Also I would like you to think about possibly broadening your view of amateur radio. You are deeply deeply involved in weak signal DX CW work on 160 even if you claim to visit other modes! I'm impressed that you have worked nearly 300 countries. Your technical approach to many things, receiver performance, antenna design, transmitter specification and so on is based entirely on how it is perceived from your weak signal DX CW work. I am not saying that these things are not applicable or important to other aspects/modes/interests of the hobby but their significance changes drastically!

Your attention to signals at the "floor" is an especially good example. Receiver noise performance is critical to what you do but, just for a moment, consider what receiver noise figures means to the guy that gets off work, grabs supper and a beer and heads to the shack to talk to his buddies, who by the way have KenSUComs and Ameritrons (all cranked to the wall because of overcrowding). He's a ham and isn't doing anything wrong but enjoys a different aspect of ham radio and the only noise he hears is QRM! What possible concern does he have that his receiver can hear a flea fart in Equador?

I think everyone has a tendency to be protective of their particular interest and focus on just that.  Even a lot of the technical pages on your site, while wonderful, are focused on or have a basis in weak signal CW DX needs. Take a look at that Tom. Look at some of your pages, while brilliantly presented, ask yourself how it relates or address other modes and interests.

I wish everyone would broaden their views and look at the hobby as a shared resource and understand that what I do, as much fun as I think it is, is boring to others.

--Larry W8ER

 

Larry,

After rereading your post I think I should go through it point by point.

You wrote:
"Let's step aside a second and look at what ham radio is really made up of. Again, turn on your receiver and listen! It seems everybody has a Jap transceiver connected to a damn Ameritron amplifier, has the accessorized microhone plugged in, and they sit and chat with their buddies."

Jap is a derogatory word, as is "rice box" when referring to a Japanese manufactured radio. We really should try to be less bigoted.

"Tom, you enjoy or CW but even though it is the second most popula it is way down the list and it isn't going to get more popular."

You have not proven it is "way down the list". CQ Magazine did an open poll, The results were:

Whether you think the FCC should (choose one):
Response: % of all respondents
Eliminate the code test requirement for all amateur license: 25%
Eliminate the code test requirement for General, but keep for Extra: 21%
Replace the current 5wpm code test with a code recognition test or similar: 4%
Leave the code test requirement as it is: 50%

A recent ARRL Survey shows:

http://www.arrl.org/survey.php3?pollnr=334

26.5 % of amateurs use Morse code more than 76% of the time.
13.5% use CW between 26 and 75% of the time.
15.8% use CW less than 25% of the time.
44.1% use no CW.

Your claim CW is a small minority of use is untrue, especially since the ARRL poll includes operators without HF privileges. We can safely say about half of active US amateurs use CW, more than that if we count only those licensed for full HF operation.

"In particular, when the forces that be, stop morse as a requirement for licensing, we are going to have an influx of activity from guys that don't know the code and don't care to. While CW will never go away as a mode it's popularity will continue to decline. Digital modes, barring something unforseen popping up, isn't going to burn the barn down either!"

How do you know that, when you don't have CW usage correct? Please state your source.

"So what do we do here. Set up the allocation such that the modes align themselves by doing away with sub bands. I personally think it is the only correct answer! This is what the CTT proposes (in a nutshell) (big picture). It keeps us from revisiting this painful process 10 years from now to realign the damn sub bands again so that the spectrum allocated to the amateur service is again properly utilized."

You are proposing eliminating ALL narrow band protection, including narrow digital (CW is digital) mode protection, based on what? Your personal opinion of use?

"Does the CTT proposal address all of the ills of such a realignment. NO emphatically NO! We never meant to because we understood that guys like Skip TY with far more digital experience than us were out there and claimed to be in the process of filing a proposal. He didn't. That would have brought three proposals forward each covering a piece of the puzzle and then there is SPARS who kept saying that they were going to file a proposal to cover this and that but they never got off of their butts to file anything!"

Why are you doing that? The FCC already considers us a pain because of the fight against BPL. Now the Think Tank knowingly burdens the FCC with something they know does not address the problems RM-11305 creates to solve what most people think is a non-problem!

"Did we expect that the CTT proposal would be accepted in it's entirety without modification. Hell no! We even offered to help other groups any way we could, including the offer to walk their proposal down to the FCC offices in Washington and assist them in the filing process! We expected others to add the necessary expertise to complete the picture."

Then you should have done all this BEFORE you asked for a specific rule change, not after.

"So what do we have now? We still have a process that can address the very ills that I have outlined and you admitted exist. They will not be address completely as we saw, that is a total opening of the sub band structure. We will have to revisit reallocation in the future, a big goal of the CTT proposal was to eliminate this need. Will the bands be realigned, as I said, I suspect that the answer will lie somewhere in between the CTT proposal and a further complicated sub division by a new measurement "bandwidth"."

Then that is what you should have solved before asking for a rule change.

"But Tom you must understand that CW no longer enjoys special status. I know it is your primary interest but it's use is fading and the allocations, if we are to have them, must be appropriate. Others say hey give me a keyboard and PSK31 or give me a big old heavy AM rig. These all are valid uses of the hobby and NO ONE INTEREST has a right to exist at the expense of the other."

That's correct. Releasing wide modes into narrow mode areas effectively allows wide modes to operate at the expense of narrow modes. We need a fence to protect narrow modes of all types from wide modes, and limits on how wide a signal can be, and limits on what modes can be used where. What the CCT proposed does exactly what you claim should not be allowed to happen.

There never was "special treatment" of CW. The mode seperation was actually based on good engineering practices. Nothing else.

"Let me address the AM or wider modes that you seem to have a passionate dislike for."

You will NEVER find a place where I say I dislike AM or wider modes. They have a place. Wide modes do NOT belong mixed in with narrow modes. There are very sound technical reasons for not mixing them.

" Do they have a right to exist .. your damn right! Do they deserve the bad press that you and others have given them NO!"

You may be confusing technical facts with bad press. Measurements prove amplitude varying voice and data transmitters of all types, including SSB, have spurious products that cause interference outside the occupied channel. Older AM transmitters are particularly bad, and many Internet mods make them significantly worse.
That's a fact, and anyone who has looked on at an old AM transmitter on an analyzer knows it.

It's a technical fact that for the same information type and rate, AM wastes significant spectrum. It's a technical fact that even when properly operated, plate modulated amateur style AM transmitters have significantly wider bandwidth for high order spurious products than any other system available to us on HF.

"I support your dislike for operators who misuse and misadjust their transmitters. It is uncalled for but there are present regulation that cover these situations. The biggest problem here is ignorance by some of those who transmit improperly and also by operators who are the victim of their own receiving equipment and thier lack of understanding of its use."

The typical modern transceiver (see, we can say that without insulting Japanese people) has a 5 kHz IM3 dynamic range of 60-90 dB. The typical SSB transmitter has an IM3 dynamic difference of about 30dB. By far most modern receivers are significantly cleaner than any era's transmitters, the poorest receivers are those using DSP as primary filtering!

On the other hand the top-of-the-line Collins 75A4 has a 5kHz IM3 dynamic range of 59dB (January 2006 QST). AM transmitters are significantly worse than modern transceivers for off channel IM products.

Most of the problem lies with transmitters, not modern receivers. Of course older receivers, being significantly worse, might give a user the impression other signals are dirty. The same is true for improperly used modern receivers such as those with a noise blanker or excessive amplification on, but as a general rule it actually is the transmitter at fault.

"I applaud you and your website for the effort that you have undertaken in the process of education but I also am critical of your personal bias against wider modes that has turned off some of the very people that need to visit your pages."

I'm not biased against wider modes. I'm biased against wasting spectrum by transmitting unnecessary bandwidth.

"To comment on your page on the mixing of modes. It's a nice piece of work BUT the concept is very narrow and thus the conclusion accurate but flawed. You refer constantly to signals as they relate to signals just above the noise floor. That is not real world!!! I listened to 160 and 75 meters and the bulk are in the -70 to -40 dbm range. I don't know how else to get this across, most of the signals that I listened to, over most of the band, were not at the noise floor!"

You miss the fundament concept of communications systems. We cannot push signal levels higher when determining limits of allowable transmitter interference. We are not on channelized commercial circuits using uniform modes, we are in a dynamic system with mode mixing. By disallowing the facts I gave you are in effect saying "let's just toss out the dynamic range advantage of narrow modes and consider them equal to the worse mode we use".

YOUR plan would force everyone on narrow modes to run 40dB gain amplifiers when 40dB less signal would work, just to get through the racket caused by SSB or AM transmitters 3-10kHz up the band. In effect our voice modulated transmitter and receiver performance would set the noise floor limits of narrow modes. That concept makes no logical sense at all Larry!

"Thank you Ameritron! So here we have a SSB QSO in progress and a guy on CW calls CQ right in the middle of the SSB passband. The CW guy gets a contact and they have a whole QSO, right down to signal reports and rigs and the SSB guys kept right at it and so did the CW guys. Put the average scenario into your conclusions, not the extreme ones, and I will be much more impressed. We all don't work weak signal DX with beverages and foour square arrays Tom!"

We will all have to run high ERP and directional receiving antennas just to work from Georgia to California if your plan goes through Larry. In order to share a SSB channel equally, the CW station would have to have at least a ten to thirteen dB ERP advantage.

Why not just use each mode to their maximum capability by keeping the wide modes away from narrow modes? That system has worked for years, and appears to still be working quite well. It's significantly more efficient to limit transmitter frequency choice problems than to try to balance two incompatible modes sharing the same frequency.

"I would be glad to discuss anything about my views and the views that I imparted to the CTT and answer questions about the CTT, if they are appropriate, but I will turn the computer off at the point the conversation disentigrates into anything other than civility."

Then I respectfully suggest we avoid using words like "Jap", "holding you hand", and so on. I'm uncomfortable with remarks like that in technical discussions. When they are used, along with words like "damn" people tend to attribute the words to BOTH parties, even when it is only one of the parties using them.

73 Tom

 

Maybe I'm correct. Perhaps you jumped the gun, and proposed something not needed, or proposed something most people consider a step backwards.

If you are correct Larry, why are the very few positive comments towards RM-11305 mostly from people who come up active in ESSB or AM forums?

It's all about dynamic range Larry.

Good engineering never sets the limit of maximum dynamic range based on the least dynamic range requirement.

Doing so would restrict all systems to the capability of the poorest system. If we all wanted to blast from Cleveland, Ohio to the New Jersey shores on 75 meters running 1500 watts, then that's where we should analyze the system. Most people do not have that as the ultimate ambition in life.

Your idea would also require both ends to have 1500 watts.

I think you'll have a tough time selling people on the idea our systems should be limited to the most wasteful use of a frequency in terms of power over distance. Traditionally communications systems are designed to maximize use of the available propatation and external noise floor, not minimize it.

I already understand that. That's why I don't work so much AM.

It's even more important that each of us be considerate to others, and not take away what they enjoy just to get some more room for wide modes that waste spectrum.

In my opinion, anyone who wants to use ESSB or AM should put up with the QRM they get. Wider modes, especially when the bandwidth does not contribute to effectiveness of communications, should not take over space of more effiicient modes.

We should have rules that limit bandwidth, not rules that encourage wasting spectrum.

There would be nothing wrong with expanding some phone bands, but turning it all loose won't work when most people have the attitude "I was here first so you get lost".

73 Tom

 

Tom,

Your theories and postulates are all based on perfect situations but ham radio is not perfect and a good example of how theories are many times wrong! Also you have a unique perspective of what you think ham radio should be and many people don't agree with you.

Tom Said:

further Tom Says:

Tom, you might want to look this one up but the present FCC allocation places CW (a narrow mode) and Phone (a wide mode) together from 3750 khz to 4000 khz.You say on one hand it doesn't work and that the mode separation is based on good engineering practices and yet the FCC mixes the two. Do CW stations operate in the phone bands .. you hear it all of the time.

Since narrow and wide modes cannot possibly exist together, can I put you down as opposing any bandplan that would allow CW in the Phone portions of the bands?

Tom said:

The FCC said (in DA-04-3661 in response to RM-10740 which was a request to limit signal bandwidth):

Tom also said:

Tom .. efficient modes use less bandwidth by definition and thus need less. However ham radio is about many things other than just efficiency!  To say that we need to cripple wider modes for the privelege of those who use spectrum more efficiently is nonsense. Why? Because  HAM RADIO ITSELF IS NOT AN EFFICIENT USE OF BANDWIDTH!  I'm sure that you get my point.

I really don't think that carrying on here about "he said you said" is going to accomplish anything. So I will just thank you for the time that you have taken to respond. I do wish that you would call Bud. I think he is quite hurt by the attacks and if you are really friends, it would help. If there is anything that I can clarify please email me at larry@w8er.com.

73 -- Larry W8ER

 

Larry,

You wrote:
"Tom, you might want to look this one up but the present FCC allocation places CW (a narrow mode) and Phone (a wide mode) together from 3750 khz to 4000 khz.You say on one hand it doesn't work and that the mode separation is based on good engineering practices and yet the FCC mixes the two. Do CW stations operate in the phone bands .. you hear it all of the time.

Since narrow and wide modes cannot possibly exist together, can I put you down as opposing any bandplan that would allow CW in the Phone portions of the bands"

Larry,

Very clearly I've pointed out the problem is the wide mode is basically UNAFFECTED by the narow mode, but the narrow mode is devistated by the wide mode.

All along I've said over and over again that wide modes need to be fenced off from narrow mode areas. My web page on mixing modes says that. I've also said it here.

As a matter of fact I've used the very specific example that a narrow mode can be REMOVED from the passband of a wide mode with minimal problem while the converse is not true.

This is why narrow modes are less restricted in operating range, NOT because the FCC made a prejudical rule.

So the answer is no, I won't support restricting very narrow modes from the area where wider mode are held  on the basis of preventing QRM. Narrow modes are easily removed from wide modes, and that technology has been available for 70 years.

Second, narrow single tone modes do not have the odd-IM distortion that increases bandwidth outside the occupied channels that multiple simultaneous tone modes like voice or some data modes. Multiple tones at the same time create off channel products through odd-order mixing.

If you read my webpage on mixing modes, you'll understand why the rules are as they are. Wide modes just destroy narrow modes, but the converse is generally not true.

CW was actually necessary in phone bands because of increased communications effectiveness and because it does not destroy the wider voice modes. The converse is NOT true. SSB or AM has no range advantage, no equipment advantage, and SSB and AM also have modulation byproducts that destroy adjacent channel weak signals.

This has all been explained before.
RM-11305 was very poorly thought out, or it never would have been filed.

73 Tom

 

I listen to 40 and 75 meter 'phone regularly - and I don't hear any routine CW operation.

I work CW contests and none of the CW contesters are in the US 'phone bands.

CW is allowed in the 'phone bands but it is rarely if ever used there.

Meanwhile, foreign 'phones are all over the CW/data parts of bands like 40 meters.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

You don't hear regular CW operation in the phone bands because there isn't any.

On 160 meters, there is somewhat regular SSB activity outside the bandplan. About every day I hear SSB below 1840 even though there is lots of empty space above 1840. And what you say about foreign SSB is true. The low end of 80 has foreign SSB on a regular daily basis, and the low end of 40 in the morning always has dozens of SSB stations.

I'd wager any amount of money at any given time when there is moderate to long distance propagation I can find SSB stations below 3550 and below 7050 on 40 and 80 meters.

Now the CCT wants to allow USA stations to join the mix, when stations north and south of the USA don't follow bandplans.

73 Tom

 

I echo-The reason you don't hear regular cw operation in the phone bands is because there isn't any.
All that I ever heard was generally where an ssb/am qso failed under heavy qsb and the ops got in a quick last comment and/or goodby before totally losing each other.

At least one respondee to this thread tried to minimize the current usage of cw on the bands. In fact Tom replied to him with statistics from CQ about their cw usage poll. CW has/is undergoing a resurgence in popularity and is especially popular in contests. K7C reported they made more qso's from Kure I. on cw than ssb.

If we have to deal with NPR's, the least we should be able to expect is to have accurate, well thought out, well rounded proposals before us. RM-11305 is a farce, a fraud and a failure and by and large, we all know it!

 

Here are some interesting statistics that serve to illustrate
possible band loading with each mode mentioned. No effort has
been made to illustrate every possible mode as all fit between
these bandwidth extremes under 29.0 Mhz. No effort has been
made to factor in any possible necessity for needed bandspace
between qso's, only to show the relative bandloading possible
with different modes.

It assumes 9 Khz. BW for AM, 3.5 Khz. for ESSB, 3.0 Khz. for
SSB, 200 Hz. for CW, 31 Hz. for PSK-31.


160 meters(1.8-2.0 Mhz)
----------
AM- 22 qso's
ESSB- 57 qso's
SSB- 67 qso's
CW- 1000 qso's
PSK31- 6451 qso's


80 meters(3.5-4.0 Mhz)
---------
AM- 56 qso's
ESSB- 143 qso's
SSB- 167 qso's
CW- 2500 qso's
PSK31- 16129 qso's


40 meters(7.0-7.3 Mhz)
---------
AM- 33 qso's
ESSB- 86 qso's
SSB- 100 qso's
CW- 1500 qso's
PSK31- 4839 qso's


30 meters(10.1-10.15 Mhz)
---------
AM- 6 qso's
ESSB- 14 qso's
SSB- 17 qso's
CW- 250 qso's
PSK31- 1613 qso's


20 meters(14.0-14.35 Mhz)
---------
AM- 39 qso's
ESSB- 100 qso's
SSB- 117 qso's
CW- 1750 qso's
PSK31- 11290 qso's


17 meters(18.068-18.168 Mhz)
---------
AM- 11 qso's
ESSB- 29 qso's
SSB- 33 qso's
CW- 500 qso's
PSK31- 3226 qso's


15 meters(21.0-21.45 Mhz)
---------
AM- 50 qso's
ESSB- 129 qso's
SSB- 150 qso's
CW- 2250 qso's
PSK31- 14516 qso's


12 meters(24.89-24.99 Mhz)
---------

Same as 17 meters


10 meters(28.0-29.0 Mhz) (Only this segment considered)
---------
AM- 111 qso's
ESSB- 286 qso's
SSB- 333 qso's
CW- 5000 qso's
PSK31- 32258 qso's



You can obliterate hundreds and thousands of your fellow
amateur's qso's with a phone band expansion that will yield
relatively few additional qso's. You can also join us in the
use of narrower bandwidth modes. Pursuing lower power use
and narrower bandwidth modes will contribute towards more
spectrum availability for all of us and less QRM! The results
you achieve will impress you!

RM-11305 seeks to allow band dominance by relative few at the
expense of the rest of us.

Just say NO! to RM-11305 Do it today

 

Anyone looking at the above chart can easily and quickly see how many users can be displaced by a relatively few just by their mode of choice if RM-11305 became law.
I personally abandoned AM in 1966 on HF and only ever used it again for a short time on 6 meters around 1970. I'd like to see its use discontinued below 29 Mhz. but the Commission has decreed that all modes must be allowed for. There is allowance made for it in all of our MF/HF phone bands. The CTT however lusted for all available amateur frequences and shamelessly initiated a proposal to get them under the guise of "benefiting" all amateurs. One supporter/apologist on this thread even began to reinvent himself when it became so apparent and CTT began to take on the aura of a benevolent body. Thankfully we know better.

 

Stick your SPAR where the sun don't shine. AM FOREVER.