Bandwidth Recommendations

[WD8BIL]

One thing I notice in their proposal is:
Their goal is to regulate by bandwidth not mode.... so what do they do ?

They specify "phone" bandwidth as 3KHz then exempt AM and ISB with 9Khz and 6Khz respectively.

Why not just say maximum modulating frequency is 4.5KHz regardless of mode. By putting the 3KHz limit in THEN exempting AM and ISB they, in effect, have segregated by mode!

So would this mean ESSB is no longer permitted

[W8ER]

Art, Steve ...

Defining a mask at this time infers other interests are being served.

I don't consider myself a technical giant and am having trouble understanding the concept of a mask. There isn't a whole lot on it out on the web unless you want a war mask or bug mask ..  

Could somebody explain that in a little more detail and at a level that maybe me and a few others can grasp?

Buddly asked:

So would this mean ESSB is no longer permitted

Absolutely! To say nothing of the little guys who think they understand bandwidth with Icom 756's with bandscopes grabbing their magnifying glass so they can see the pixels and email Riley everytime they see an extra pixel lit up! Just a small part of the problem with the "proposal"

--Larry W8ER

[Art]

The mask is the outline of a spectrum analysis that a transmission cannot exceed and still be in compliance with regulations.
A way to visualize a mask in this context is spectrum analysis of an FM transmission. The FCC commercial FM mask consists of the center section which is the carrier and 120KHz on either side at 0dB (reference) this includes the program AF sidebands which are down about 13dB from the reference, the next 120KHz increment is down from the reference by 25dB so you can include subcarrier information on the FM carrier. The next step from 240 to 360KHz must be down 35dB from the main carrier.  Greater than 360KHz on either side must be down 80dB.
The mask looks kind of like a two step porch on either side of the main carrier with the sidewalk 80dB down.
A Digital mask would enclose analog and digital components which contain sidebands and separate carriers. If you imagine simultaneous AM and FM signals and define the bandwidth and amplitude of each component from main carrier, sub carriers, and modulation products, and then plot the resultant characteristic you would be generating a mask.  
The GSM mask looks kind of like a Mayan pyramid with a flat top and one major step with angular rise above and below the shallow run in the middle.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

The mask for FM is shown in a previous post in this thread.

http://amfone.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=33984#33984

[W8ER]

Thanks!

[kc4zup]

The FACT is that they want to re-regulate us, and provide for AM in a "special exemption" much as the KW  grandfather clause. They then can just elimainate the exemption.

To keep discussing the technical merits is a waste of time. They don't want the facts, they have there minds made up, and are only agreeable to amend them slightly to get it implemented. They then  figure they can change it simply by taking out the exemptions!

There is something BIG driving this, and I can't figure out what!

I just recieved this from "my" section leader:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tentative proposals by frequency band:

   160M - Entire band = up to 3 kHz
   75/80M - Segments of up to 200 Hz, 500 Hz, and 3 kHz.  A sub-segment
of 3 kHz would be open to automatic control.  AM and Independent SB
(ISB) would be authorized by special exemption.
   40M - Same as for 80/75.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read this as no exemption for 160M. Therfore NO AM.

What can we do?? We need to get together and get something started or we are going to lose big! Discussion of technical aspects, which they seem to ignore,  will not help.

We need somehow to present another face to the FCC or I'm afraid we will lose our operating privileges and can forget Ham Radio as we know it!

I don't know how to do this, but hope we have an attorney or someone on this list who does.

Sounds to me like we need to start a fund to fight this. Anybody got any ideas?

I like my hobby. Don't want to give it up for "automatically" controlled "digital" operation!!!!!!

Gary WB8BEM/8

[W8ER]

Gary,

Several months ago, I too felt that we were in a crisis and that losing functionality was imminent and that something had to be done immediately. Actually it doesn't!

First withdraw your support of the ARRL!  There is no way to justify supporting any organization that would further a proposal like this. There is no way to work through them, that has been tried. They are not a representative organization, despite their org charts.

Encourage your friends to do the same. If their base erodes, and all they have left is life members, they may start to see that they have done something wrong. I doubt it but it's the only statement that can be made that will have an eventual effect.

Next wait until the proposal, in all of it's glory hits the FCC and then sit down and write a very well thought out response. It is going to be a huge response and it's not likely that the ARRL is going to come out of this, on top. There are too many faults in their proposal when all is considered. They won't listen and you can bet that they will do it their way! So trying to discuss the merits is indeed a waste of time.

In the meantime, sit back and enjoy 160 Gary, it's not over until the FCC sings and I believe that it's going to be a while.

You might also try starting a rumor on the internet that Newington Connecticut is really a code name for Camp David and make sure that it's picked up by AlQueda.

--Larry W8ER

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

Larry Yer Bad....