Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /homepages/11/d132647312/htdocs/Amfone/mkportal/include/SMF/smf_out.php on line 47
Bandwidth proposal and 160m AM




 
The AM Forum
December 05, 2021, 05:41:34 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bandwidth proposal and 160m AM  (Read 52416 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10062



« on: May 10, 2005, 08:07:36 PM »

Here is an excerpt from an e-mail I just received.  No comment from me at this time other than to take it for what you think it is worth.

Quote
...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.

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...  
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
Jack-KA3ZLR-
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2005, 08:26:21 PM »

Hi Don,

 This whole bandwidth issue has everybody jumping, i've been hostile with it myself a time or two, I'm going to wait to see what the geniuses come out with then i'll decide my next move... there's Still time to Grab them at Dayton and Voice an Opinion with them for anyone going...
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7918


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2005, 08:46:42 PM »

My take is that his "section leader" should go back and read the proposal correctly. Read, understand, and then transmit.

Quote from the ARRL site:
Quote
The EC made no change to its earlier recommendation that the rules continue to permit double-sideband, full-carrier AM and independent sideband (ISB) as specific exceptions to the 3 kHz bandwidth limit--with restrictions of 9 kHz and 6 kHz respectively--on all bands now allowing 'phone transmissions. (In ISB, or independent sideband, each sideband of a double-sideband signal carries information or data independent of the other.)


For the full updated text:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/?nc=1
or read the previous threads on the AM Forum under ARRL.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
W2VW
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3489


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2005, 09:06:30 PM »

My take is that the league should go find something important to do. This stuff reminds me of the CB groups in the 70's who gave out numbers to paying members.
VHF bandplans are a success but H.F. is another thing.
Logged
KL7OF
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2215



« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2005, 09:40:23 PM »

QTF is the deal with this bandwidth regulation?  It is so ignorant to regulate an experimental service by bandwidth.......Who thought this BS up?  Why are they even considering bandwidth limitations?  What are we missing here?.......CW is no longer a dominant mode,You don't even have to know how to dit dah for a license and well over half the spectrum is still dedicated to the mode........AM is more popular now than it has been for the last 20 years and the "League" is behind a move to limit bandwidth!!  Its horseshit plain and simple....as I see it...I'd like someone to explain it to me.....Steve KL7OF

When 9 khz bandwidth is outlawed, only outlaws will have 9khz bandwidth.
Logged
W8ER
Guest
« Reply #5 on: May 10, 2005, 10:06:48 PM »

Guys,

The sky is not falling! Jack and Don have the right idea. Wait until the ARRL files the proposal and then is the time to react, in the comment phase. I believe that further discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of this thing is a waste of time right now.

I do suggest that everyone evaluate if, in their own mind, they need to support an organization that comes forward with a proposal like this. My $39 says hell no!

Hey guys, did you hear that Newington Connecticut is the code name for Camp David? Pass it on, preferably to someone you know in Afghanistan!

--Larry W8ER
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7918


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2005, 03:30:05 AM »

Quote from: W8ER
Guys,

I do suggest that everyone evaluate if, in their own mind, they need to support an organization that comes forward with a proposal like this. My $39 says hell no!


I wonder how long the amateur radio service would last without the organization.

Quote
Hey guys, did you hear that Newington Connecticut is the code name for Camp David? Pass it on, preferably to someone you know in Afghanistan!

--Larry W8ER


Thanks Larry. Another great reason to continue the support.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4362


« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2005, 07:38:19 AM »

Quote
I wonder how long the amateur radio service would last without the organization.


Name one thing the ARRL has done in the past 20 years that has PREVENTED the demise of amateur radio ??

Larry's right....... let them file their ignorance then beat it to a pulp during the comment phase. Considering they only represent 25% of the amateurs..........
Logged
Art
Guest
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2005, 08:31:50 AM »

"I wonder how long the amateur radio service would last without the organization."

All this doubletalk with exemptions and restrictions is yet another smoke screen for an increased regulatory climate. The FCC has resoundingly responded to this attitude already.

I think amateur radio would last longer without the promulgation of ill considered and/or biased regulations attacking a charter element of amateur radio.  If the ARRL is the mechanism for such folly, this is one ARRL life member who thinks the institution should be reorganized to focus on advancing the service, or replaced.

My response to the ARRL is: Go ahead, make my day.

-ap
Logged
Art
Guest
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2005, 08:42:23 AM »

If two (to be kind) operators can petition for an increase in regulatory climate . . . I wonder what would happen if a group requested a reduction in regulation? Say, to a format like Canada and essentially, the rest of the world. The powerful arguments that have been presented for this position would decrease the enforcement load on the FCC, it would be better for the service, etc.  . . .
I do not simply want to shoot down the ARRL proposal or settle for status quo. I want common sense regulation aligned with the rest of the amateur world.

opinions? participants?

-ap
Logged
W8ER
Guest
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2005, 09:25:10 AM »

Art,

I do not know the process but it can't be rocket science!

and Pete CWA ... you personally, with your boatanchor manual service, have done more for ham radio than the ARRL.  


--Larry W8ER
Logged
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4362


« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2005, 09:37:14 AM »

Quote
Anybody else in  ?


I'm in..... I'll add my "voice".
Logged
KL7OF
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2215



« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2005, 10:06:35 AM »

(quote)

I think amateur radio would last longer without the promulgation of ill considered and/or biased regulations attacking a charter element of amateur radio.  If the ARRL is the mechanism for such folly, this is one ARRL life member who thinks the institution should be reorganized to focus on advancing the service, or replaced.


I agree!!! The league needs to reorganize on this one ...I like the Canadian type rules.........Simple, easy to understand and enforce.....much less beauracracy, and they allow for all modes......
Logged
Art
Guest
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2005, 11:21:48 AM »

Larry . . . you are right! researching the application process is first. run with that ball for now and I will parallel process for the next steps . . . prolly means getting a lawyer to put it in the correct format . . . I'll be smarter after some research . . .

My sense is we have positive consensus on this board (a leap considering the few responses but not when previous comments are included in the mix. . .). How to we include other groups?


-ap
Logged
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2005, 12:09:38 PM »

How about someone draft a letter on this board and we all attach our calls to it then send it to the FCC. Each person could vote to have their call attached.
I don't see why there needs to be a change when there are less hams
anyway. Ham radio will become the oo police state if the bandwidth is reduced.
Gee if we all sound like crap that will really attract new hams who want to sound like crap too.
Logged
W8ER
Guest
« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2005, 12:26:46 PM »

Art and others,

Is this something that you wish to do openly on the AM Forum?

Comments and additional participants ... Huh

--Larry
Logged
Jim, W5JO
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2480


« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2005, 03:04:30 PM »

I just read this email message on another popular reflector.  So considering all the discussion of the subject and charges and countercharges that some of us have not read the proposal, I went to the ARRL website and reread the proposal.  

I believe our real concern is that the proposal does not specify in it's body that the bandwidth necessary for AM is present.  Also, while the proposal says 160 meters won't change, that is not in their graphical presentation.  AM is treated as a "special exemption" rather than a bandwidth mode except on 10 meters where it is lumped in with FM at 16 Kc.  

The real rub with this proposal is the fact that automatic stations will be allowed to operate without necessary controls to prevent interference.  This is REALLY the place the ARRL is dropping the ball.  Even on the commercial bands, an operator is required to monitor a frequency before transmitting to prevent interference.  Should the ARRL want to allow automatic stations, they should require the automatic station have a monitor receiver that, when activity is present on the automatic station's transmit frequency, would prevent the automatic station from transmitting.

One thing that AM operators should insist is that those sections of the band where voice of any type is allowed, would accomadate up to 9 or 10 Kc bandwidths in those phone sections.  It would be easy for the FCC, at the ARRL's urging, to confine AM transmissions to a "window" on any or all of the bands below 30 Mc.

This discussion only deals with the proposal in it's present form not whether it should be opposed in it's entirety.

73  Jim
W5JO



["my state director sent out a email on this subject it was a little vague in
some depts as to the reasons for the BW issue. He had asked about
interference to cw and rtty ops from digi stations that the guys were
complaining about. he said he had never had any problems and wanted to know
just who had.
we his latest email was a couple of days ago on the subject and guess what
. yesterday i was on 14.010 and some lid starts a pactor connect right on
top of the HZ1 I was trying to work. wiped out that for a lot of the guys..
then last night i was trying to work another dx stations on  14.002.5 and
here come N3YAH connecting to N9TSM right on a freq that is in use by many
stations.. N3YAH connects and sends a email message about chain saws and
Charter One Band needs you to update your records. What the hell is this
lids up too ? passing junk mail off the Internet. here is where the winlink
and pactor 1,11,and 111 problems lie. these guys are not passing health and
welfare but Internet junk mail most of the time. i see a need for these
modes but why do we need to go by band with ? hell they have  14.060 to
14.080 now for all these modes"]
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7918


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2005, 12:11:47 PM »

Quote from: WA1GFZ
How about someone draft a letter on this board and we all attach our calls to it then send it to the FCC. Each person could vote to have their call attached.
I don't see why there needs to be a change when there are less hams
anyway. Ham radio will become the oo police state if the bandwidth is reduced.
Gee if we all sound like crap that will really attract new hams who want to sound like crap too.


There is nothing before the FCC at this time concerning the "issue" at hand. What are they going to respond to??

Quote
Gee if we all sound like crap that will really attract new hams who want to sound like crap too.


Maybe some hams just like to communicate. Sounding like "crap" is not an issue with them
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
K1MVP
Guest
« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2005, 12:30:27 PM »

Quote
Gee if we all sound like crap that will really attract new hams who want to sound like crap too.


Maybe some hams just like to communicate. Sounding like "crap" is not an issue with them[/quote]

Hi Pete,
 If sounding like "crap" is not an issue, with hams today, then maybe,
 (just maybe) we are on the "downhill slide" to CB after all.
 I always thought what made ham radio different from CB, was that
 hams DID care about the quality of their signal.

                                        73, K1MVP Smiley
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7918


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2005, 12:37:51 PM »

Quote
Hi Pete,
If sounding like "crap" is not an issue, with hams today, then maybe,
(just maybe) we are on the "downhill slide" to CB after all.
I always thought what made ham radio different from CB, was that
hams DID care about the quality of their signal.


It depends on how you define "crap". GFZ should define what he means by "crap". i.e. AM, SSB, CW, digital modes, etc.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Art
Guest
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2005, 12:45:55 PM »

Petey. Rather than argue about the definition of crap. What exactly, do you support?


-ap
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7918


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2005, 01:50:57 PM »

Quote from: Art
Petey. Rather than argue about the definition of crap. What exactly, do you support?


-ap


Ok, I'll bite.
In the case of audio:
Audio quality that permits 100% intelligibility communications over the frequency of interest.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4362


« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2005, 01:57:37 PM »

Quote
Audio quality that permits 100% intelligibility communications over the frequency of interest.


So you have no problem with bandwidth limitations Huh
Logged
K1MVP
Guest
« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2005, 02:00:08 PM »

Quote from: Pete, WA2CWA
Quote from: Art
Petey. Rather than argue about the definition of crap. What exactly, do you support?


-ap


Ok, I'll bite.
In the case of audio:
Audio quality that permits 100% intelligibility communications over the frequency of interest.


Ok--and what does that mean relavant to AM?
Are we back to "yellowfied" or "restricted" audio on AM just for
"communications purposes"?
                                        73, K1MVP Smiley
Logged
Art
Guest
« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2005, 02:09:52 PM »

Well Pete that's where we differ. I don't want to define how someone may sound, how they may interpret "necessary", how I may interpret necessary, it's amateur radio for cryin out loud. Rem: experimentation? rem: inclusive of all. . . not exclusive of some if they want to use an old fart rig that uses phasing to generate SSB or a broadcast rig for AM. . . this doesn't relieve anyone of the fundamental rule of assuring your transmitter doesn't interfere with communications in process . . . same with the digital modes . . . if someone is firing up on CW DX communications they are already in violation of the regs . . . more regs won't make it better . . . even if it specifically addresses this situation.

Thanks for laying out your position tho and giving me a chance to lay out mine . . . . the differences in us make life interesting . .


-ap
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
 AMfone 2001-2015
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.557 seconds with 18 queries.