Docket 20777 and Johnny Johnston: interesting comment pops up on QRZ.com

[k4kyv]

Tried that with FCC Docket 20777 in the 1970s. Hams made quite an uproar against it. I was at a club meeting when W3BE said he thought he had a winner with that and was surprised when so much of the ham community rose against it.

One more indication that Johnston indeed was the instigator of 20777.

http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=208226&page=10

[K5UJ]

Tried that with FCC Docket 20777 in the 1970s. Hams made quite an uproar against it. I was at a club meeting when W3BE said he thought he had a winner with that and was surprised when so much of the ham community rose against it.

One more indication that Johnston indeed was the instigator of 20777.

http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=208226&page=10

Don,

I have been reading the whole history of AM and the actions of Johnston and others in the past two issues of E.R.  I had no idea of all the work you and others did to protect AM.   I  was licensed back then but part of the time I was in the Army, then college and moving around so I was mostly inactive and unaware of what was going on.  I was also brainwashed by what I'll refer to collectively as the Anti-AM Officialdom and led to believe SSB was the radiotelephone way to go.  I wish to thank you for all your work to protect AM and keep it alive with the Press Exchange etc. so that I am able to enjoy it today.

73

Rob K5UJ

[k4kyv]

Thanks.

I don't know how I ever had the time to do it.  I was working full time at a high school teaching job back then, and even managed to still get in some actual ham radio operating time.  After Roger, N4IBF went SK, I carried it on single-handedly for several more years.

The main problem was that eventually the articles submitted slowed to a trickle, so instead of coming out monthly, we managed to get an issue out every few months.  By then ER had taken hold as a reliable AM-oriented monthly, and the kind of information we attempted to distribute was increasingly available on the internet, as more and more hams went on-line in the late 90's and early 00's.

A unique feature of AM P/X was camera-ready submission of articles. I have never heard of any other publication operating in that manner, but it worked for us all those years. Writers typed up and laid out their own articles and included photographs, charts and circuit diagrams, and we used the material as-is, sometimes uncorrected typos and all, to paste up a master copy of each issue, including some editorial material, and then took it to the printers.  The hard work was assembling all the issues, affixing the stamps and mailing labels and getting them to the P.O., plus keeping track of subscriptions.

But with the proliferation of personal computers and the internet, paper newsletters have become somewhat a thing of the past.  Now, if some ill-conceived, poorly thought-out docket comes out of the FCC threatening to adversely affect AM, within hours, word has spread throughout the community and the FCC receives feedback almost immediately.  The most significant recent example that I can think of was the ARRL's ill-fated bandwidth petition.

The W5YI Report ceased publication and even the ARRL LETTER has converted to online-only, by discontinuing the dead-tree edition.  Most recently, WorldRadio has gone that route.

The ER articles contain a few trivial errors in the details , but all told, he did a good job telling the story like it was.

[K5UJ]

Thanks.

I don't know how I ever had the time to do it.  I was working full time at a high school teaching job back then, and even managed to still get in some actual ham radio operating time.  After Roger, N4IBF went SK, I carried it on single-handedly for several more years.

The main problem was that eventually the articles submitted slowed to a trickle, so instead of coming out monthly, we managed to get an issue out every few months.  By then ER had taken hold as a reliable AM-oriented monthly, and the kind of information we attempted to distribute was increasingly available on the internet, as more and more hams went on-line in the late 90's and early 00's.

A unique feature of AM P/X was camera-ready submission of articles. I have never heard of any other publication operating in that manner, but it worked for us all those years. Writers typed up and laid out their own articles and included photographs, charts and circuit diagrams, and we used the material as-is, sometimes uncorrected typos and all, to paste up a master copy of each issue, including some editorial material, and then took it to the printers.  The hard work was assembling all the issues, affixing the stamps and mailing labels and getting them to the P.O., plus keeping track of subscriptions.

But with the proliferation of personal computers and the internet, paper newsletters have become somewhat a thing of the past.  Now, if some ill-conceived, poorly thought-out docket comes out of the FCC threatening to adversely affect AM, within hours, word has spread throughout the community and the FCC receives feedback almost immediately.  The most significant recent example that I can think of was the ARRL's ill-fated bandwidth petition.

The W5YI Report ceased publication and even the ARRL LETTER has converted to online-only, by discontinuing the dead-tree edition.  Most recently, WorldRadio has gone that route.

The ER articles contain a few trivial errors in the details , but all told, he did a good job telling the story like it was.

Yeah, it's amazing how we get through things when we look back on them.  That's another sacrifice, giving up operating time. You could have blown it all off and just operated and had a good time.  The camera-ready copy process was a great idea.  It probably really speeded up the getting out of news.  I've observed that the FCC Electronic Filing system has democratized the process of filing and commenting on filings for rule making petitions.   It used to be only a few entities who could afford the costs of having a Washington firm draw up a petition, produce around 20 official copies and submit them in person in Washington, could get the ear of the FCC.  Seems like often, we'd hear about something having to do with Part 97 after the fact from those who thought they knew what was good for us more than we did.   

Now, any yahoo like me can file a comment and find out what's going on with an online search of the ECFS.  I bet there are those who are not real pleased by this because they no longer have a special pipeline to the FCC and are therefore not much more relevant than anyone else.     

[w3jn]

We who came into AM well after this debacle owe a huge debt of gratitude to gentlemen such as Don, Dale KW1I, Bill KD0HG, and yes even Glenn Baxter as well as the others who played a part.  Were it not for their huge investment of time, and persistence in keeping the flame lit, there's no doubt that AM would be outlawed today.

[K5UJ]

We who came into AM well after this debacle owe a huge debt of gratitude to gentlemen such as Don, Dale KW1I, Bill KD0HG, and yes even Glenn Baxter as well as the others who played a part.  Were it not for their huge investment of time, and persistence in keeping the flame lit, there's no doubt that AM would be outlawed today.

Yes indeed.  And at the Midwest Hamboree this morning I picked up three handbooks, 1939, 1951 and 1957 and I've spent a few hours this afternoon reading from the days when Phone meant AM.

[k4kyv]

Another factor in the pre-internet days was that the monthly publications were incredibly slow in disseminating the news.  It took not just weeks, but months for an event to occur and news of it to make it to publication and actually arrive in the hands of the  subscriber.  By then, the comment period had already closed on many of the petitions and dockets.  Particularly in the 70's and 80's, many of the most controversial proposals were given incredibly short comment periods.  This is not to mention numerous anti-AM petitions submitted to the FCC by members of the amateur community.

The idea of a monthly AM newsletter was first realised by Howard Jack, W2NRM, with the  original Press Exchange.  The mainstream amateur radio publishers were aware of the time delay problem with monthly magazines, and several bi-weekly amateur radio newsletters appeared: H-R Reports, W5YI Report and ARRL Letter.

Many of us remember the docket-a-month era during the late 70's and early 80's.  For a long period, the FCC was releasing a seemingly never ending stream of proposals that would have radically changed some aspect of amateur radio, and "coincidentally", many of them would have adversely affected AM in some manner.

Just to mention a few: Docket 20777, the bandwidth docket that would have outlawed AM below 28 mHz.  The first "restructuring" docket during the 70's that for the first time proposed a p.e.p. power limit and limited General class to DX-100 power levels on AM.  The "plain language" docket that would have imposed a specific bandwidth limit of 7.0 kHz.  Somewhere in there was another proposal that contained a provision to impose an "interim" power limit in terms of p.e.p. input power. And of course, there was the infamous output power limit rule that went into effect in 1990.

This series of proposals, with a recurring anti-AM thread, started almost immediately after Johnston became head of the FCC division in charge of amateur radio rulemaking.  He held on to that position for something like 30 years before retiring, through several restructurings of the FCC in which the bureaux and divisions underwent name changes that would rival the name changes of local banks over past generation or so.  During the latter years of his tenure, the docket proposals slowed down somewhat and left AM and amateur radio in general in a relative state of peace, but not until Johnston finally succeeded in getting his long sought-after p.e.p. and consequent AM power reduction proposal passed.

[Jim, W5JO]

And it is amazing that even today there are groups deeply rooted in the ARRL and other organizations that want to limit the bandwidth of AM and ESSB.  It is, and probably always will be, an ongoing struggle.

[WA3VJB]

I bet there are those who are not real pleased by this because they no longer have a special pipeline to the FCC and are therefore not much more relevant than anyone else.     

Very true.

The Electronic Comment Filing System provides immediate notice of proposals and allows an immediate public response. No more filtering by "representatives" with an agenda.

The volume can be huge, and the pro- and con- results can be deadly to those on the wrong side of the idea.

[Opcom]

it should go back to the 1KW average DC input to the RF stage..

[k4kyv]

Or average rf power output.

Evidently, Canadians are smarter than United Statesians.  One of the arguments the FCC used in the docket proceeding was that it would have made the wording of the power limit rule too cumbersome, and would have unjustifiably cost them extra money to train their field inspectors, to mandate separate power standards for full  carrier and carrierless modes of emission.

The Canadians managed to do it without too much difficulty:

10.2 Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced Qualifications

The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced Qualifications is limited to a maximum transmitting power of:

(a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 1,000 W to the anode or collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio frequency energy to the antenna; or (b) where expressed as radio frequency output power measured across an impedance-matched load,

(i) 2,250 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type of single sideband emission, or

(ii) 750 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type of emission.

[K6JEK]

Or average rf power output.

Evidently, Canadians are smarter than United Statesians.  One of the arguments the FCC used in the docket proceeding was that it would have made the wording of the power limit rule too cumbersome, and would have unjustifiably cost them extra money to train their field inspectors, to mandate separate power standards for full  carrier and carrierless modes of emission.

The Canadians managed to do it without too much difficulty:

10.2 Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced Qualifications

The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced Qualifications is limited to a maximum transmitting power of:

(a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 1,000 W to the anode or collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio frequency energy to the antenna; or (b) where expressed as radio frequency output power measured across an impedance-matched load,

(i) 2,250 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type of single sideband emission, or

(ii) 750 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type of emission.

Don,

Can you help me understand the Canadian rule.  Is part a) effectively 1000 W carrier input?  Is that the limit applies to AMers in Canada?

[Ralph W3GL]

For K6JEK...

Simple answer is yes, VE Amateurs are allowed 1 KW input power to the stage
connected to the antenna!  That is for any mode (AM, RTTY, CW, etc...) other
than SSB

1 KW DC input to the plate of a class C final at 75% efficiency equals 750
watts output from the stage.   

As for the average output power measurement  across an  impedance-matched load,
you use an RF Amp meter connected with 50 ohm coax to a 50 ohm dummy load.  Do the
math; simple Ohms Law...  Yeah, I know, RF is high frequency AC but you still get a close
measurement using the DC formula knowing the current and resistance (impedance)...

[flintstone mop]

I am glad that this has re-surfaced. I was surprised that Glenn was involved as much as he was. But seemed to go in the ways that he has taken in past adventures.

My question is about the FCC spec for 375 watts of carrier modulated 100%. Is this the A.M. spec for 100% negative? Which is the technical limitation of any A.M. transmitter.
What happens to the P.E.P. rating when we are capable of 130% positive??

Fred

[k4kyv]

Contrary to popular misconception, there is absolutely no mention of 375 watts anywhere in Part 97.  That is totally 100% urban legend, along with the 6 kHz AM bandwidth limitation that so many hammy hambones insist resides somewhere in the FCC rules.

I would wager that fewer than 50% of to-day's hams could even explain what p.e.p. is, beyond "what the meter kicks up to when I talk".

[Pete, WA2CWA]

As Don says, 375 watts is an urban legend. 97.313 says: (b) No station may transmit with a transmitter power exceeding 1.5 kW PEP. How you comply with that is up to you. You can run more power and not modulate 100%, and still meet the 1500 watt PEP rule.

[flintstone mop]

Thanks Pete,
You have shed a completely different light on this. Now I understand the "myth" part.

Fred

[Ed/KB1HYS]

How about running 1500watts carrier, and using "Downward" modulation?

1500W Pep output there too...

Might raise a few eyebrows!

Don't know what it would be like on the reciever end though.

[w5omr]

How about running 1500watts carrier, and using "Downward" modulation?
...
Don't know what it would be like on the reciever end though.

It would sound alright.  There would be a huge ol' honkin' carrier, and no background noise. 

There would be no distractions from the received audio.

All of this has been hashed out before.

Don doesn't like to toot his own horn, but he was involved with a couple of other hams on this matter.  Check out:
http://www.qsl.net/wa5bxo/asyam/aam3.html

--
73 = Best Regard"S"
Geoff/W5OMR (/5 Baja Spring, TX)

[Ed/KB1HYS]

Well, read that article, I guess I was thinking more of Reverse Carrier control than downward modulation.

[DMOD]

The Canadians managed to do it without too much difficulty:

10.2 Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced Qualifications

The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced Qualifications is limited to a maximum transmitting power of:

(a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 1,000 W to the anode or collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio frequency energy to the antenna; or (b) where expressed as radio frequency output power measured across an impedance-matched load,

(i) 2,250 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type of single sideband emission, or

(ii) 750 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type of emission.

Now that makes sense, but I would change (i) to read, "3kW."

I also like the 1.5kW carrier with downward modulation.

And yes, we are indebted to you guys for keeping AM a viable part of AR. 

Maybe we could petition the FCC to adopt the Canadian regs?

Phil - AC0OB

[k4kyv]

How about running 1500watts carrier, and using "Downward" modulation?

1500W Pep output there too...

Might raise a few eyebrows!

Don't know what it would be like on the reciever end though.

Would sound about as crappy as the mis-adjusted riceboxes you frequently hear attempting to run AM when the voice peaks activate the ALC and cause the carrier to drop in strength at every syllable.  A piss-poor way to promote AM at best, it would likely generate negative interest in the mode.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Would sound about as crappy as the mis-adjusted riceboxes you frequently hear attempting to run AM when the voice peaks activate the ALC and cause the carrier to drop in strength at every syllable.  A piss-poor way to promote AM at best, it would likely generate negative interest in the mode.

On many of the current Icoms, 756 PRO Series, 7600, 7700, 7800, and several others it doesn't sound that bad, and in many cases, it's not even noticeable. The audio can be further improved by connecting directly to the modulator (wider response) through the Accessory jack in the rear of the units. If you use audio equalizers, compressors, etc. connecting here, bypasses a lot of the front-end audio tailoring.

[Tim WA1HnyLR]

Yes ,
I certainly remember when Docket 20777 was being unrolled. I was at a ham radio event.Perhaps an ARRL convention. Johnston W3BE was there talking up the new proposed rule change. Kevin WB4AIO stood up and challenged Johnny Johnston . The future of AM was hanging in the balance . I was afraid of the future. BUT it turned out good with all of the support for the preservation of AM
> Let me make one thing perfectly clear in regard to AM power. A 375 watt carrier AM signal @100% peak modulation is actually 187.5 watts PEP double sideband. It is well known that when viewing a full carrier double sideband emission on a spectrum analyzer ,the peak levels of the sidebands are -6 db from the carrier value at 100% modulation. THERFORE your alleged full legal limit rig like a BC610 or Junkston 500 is only equal to a barefoot ricebox  when it comes to receiving  your signal on a single sideband receiver. When it comes to cutting through the garbage one MUST run enough power to equal the playing field. 1500 watts PEP double sideband is perfectly legal. In order to add enough carrier for proper demodulation at the receiving location assuming 100% modulation peaks we need 3000 watts of carrier !!. It realy wants to make me puke when someone claims they are running full legal power by stating they are running 375 watts carrier. Yes there is a 4:1 PEP to carrier ratio for 100% positive peak modulation  with AM emission. This is due to the peak voltage and phase relationships of the sidebands and the carrier. The reality is AM is a combination of the audio frequencies and the carrier frequencies. We all know that a 500 watt DC inpoot PA stage requires 250 watts of audio to reach 100% modulation. That 250 watts of power is your actual talk power. With conventional plate modulation with a typical PA efficiency of about 75% .The 250 watts of audio power  you think you are delivering to the antenna is reduced to that the efficiency of the class C stage leaving you with 187.5 watts or so. Let us think of building a modulator that makes 1500 watts of power. Use that power to modulate an appropriate PA stage. In my case the plans are on the books for another 4-1000 transmitter with 6Kv plate voltage at full strap.
The reason why we have power limits in the first place is to limit interference potential as well as possible RF safety reasons. A carrier from an AM signal does not cause interference unless it is in your bandpass. A carrier has NO occupied bandwidth. Therefore has NO interference potential.It is the sidebands that cause interference .
 The one FeeCCee rule that seems to be overlooked by many people is to run the minimum amount of power for the desired level of communications.  Basicly a good signal to noise ratio based on good engineering standards. I find that in many cases the usual 100-150 watt power class suffices in many cases . Sometimes the so called legal limit in many cases works well. There are time when well over a kilowatt is needed to communicate under stress and durress times.
In closing it is safe to assume if you have a transmitter such as a Junskton kilowatt or some 1Kw broadcast transmitter ,running such a transmitter is STILL below 1500 watts PEP double sideband energy and therfore perfectly legal.
Tim WA1HnyLR

[ka3zlr]

This....This Statement Made by Tim....shud be Framed and made available at the forefront of this Forum For all New ones to Read and for some of us oldsters for a refresher...I like it when Tim speaks......Keep the World Straight Tim Well Done OM....

73
Jack.
KA3ZLR.