Bandwidth proposal and 160m AM

[Jim, W5JO]

Agree with all Larry.  I sure hope my Director doesn't do what yours did.  He may get a recall from me, probably won't do much good, but I am going to give him hell.

The representative part for all amateurs is what galls me.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Pete

You wrote this

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

Well that can be done around 3k. That is restricted audio for AM Pete at least in my book.

It can be done at 1.8 and 2.4 kHz too if you really like the carbon or telephone handset type audio. How you perceive "restricted audio" on the air, I believe, is a matter of personal taste. We been sensitized much too long that “wide is good”, “wide is natural”, “wide is the only way to go”; no “scratchy Apache” audio please. When I work someone on AM, it’s for the contact, the discussion, the friendship, the fun. They don’t need to rattle my windows with their audio or rumble the upstairs floor.  And, since the majority of the time I use headphones, whether you’re 3, 4, 5, or 6 kHz, really makes no difference to me. Most of the time, I keep the receiver in the 6kHz bandwidth position.

It might be time to review the QEX article, Jan/Feb 2003 Digital Standards/Amateur Radio Applications. Page 54 starts the "adaptation for amateur radio use". Ten-Tec ran several on the air successful  tests last year using this method.
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/x0301049.pdf

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Jim, W5JO wrote - In fact 9 Khz is too little for some here. Why not make it 9 Khz and exempting greater bandwidths for DBS w/carrier if there is no interference or other stations on the band as the exemption and lump the modes by bandwidth wihch is what the goofs are proposing anyway? Better yet make it up to 12 Khz.

I wasn't very happy when they dropped the highway speed down to 55 to "save gas" years ago. Maybe we saved gas; maybe we didn't; I don't know but I tried to stay within the rule as best I could.

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

I don't know... I thought the premise was to use all emissions to their full advantage under guideline salted with experimentation to further the Art and to enhance the service and provide a pool of qualified operators..[Old School]..

Subjectively, to impress 1.8 or 2.4Khc signal on a Carrier wave emission is not using the mode to it's full advantage, and is wasting energy generated. if the thought is to operate optimally, then the enhancement of SSB is what was concieved to provide the service an emission characteristic of what you describe Pete...

In todays Reality, if the concerns are interested in Optimal operations, actions and activities being what they are, and seeing first hand what had transpired from the ESSB crowd, the next Logical Step if you will, is Space Not limitations...regardless of what data is impressed on any generated emission, if the emissons are piling up on one another as we see Today, Room is the order of the Day Not More Restrictions..

[W8ER]

I wasn't very happy when they dropped the highway speed down to 55 to "save gas" years ago. Maybe we saved gas; maybe we didn't; I don't know but I tried to stay within the rule as best I could.

Pete, this is not about staying within the rules at all! Your good buddies up in Newington, you know David et all, are trying to get the FCC to make new rules! What I am saying is the ARRL is asking the FCC to lower the speed limit! WHY?

And, since the majority of the time I use headphones, whether you’re 3, 4, 5, or 6 kHz, really makes no difference to me.

Well I guess that says it all! There is a dramatic difference between 3 khz and 6 khz in the quality of voice transmissions. There's two possibilities, either your headphones are busted or .... If I couldn't tell the difference between going 30 mph and 60 mph, I supposed I wouldn't care if I was riding in a car or on a horse either!

--Larry

[Art]

well then Pete, If you cant tell the difference thats fine . . . use your headphones . . operate as you wish . . . just don't tell me that I must operate as you wish.

-ap

[K1MVP]

It can be done at 1.8 and 2.4 kHz too if you really like the carbon or telephone handset type audio. How you perceive "restricted audio" on the air, I believe, is a matter of personal taste. We been sensitized much too long that “wide is good”, “wide is natural”, “wide is the only way to go”; no “scratchy Apache” audio please.

Pete,
 If what you say is true, about being "sensitized" much too long that
 "wide is good", and "bigger is better",--maybe qrp`ers would say
 that more power is "bad", es introduce a petition to restrict power
 levels to a "maximum" of 100 watts, OR maybe even 50 watts.
 If you want restricted audio, or low power--fine, the question is
 why should it be "forced" or "jammed" down other people`s throats.
                                           
                                          73, K1MVP

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

With Ample Room, and if people would adhere to the Gentlemens agreements and Mind their buisness, Width wouldn't be Such a problem...

Misunderstanding Why Width is such a problem Here...

[Jim, W5JO]

I wasn't happy at all with incentive licensing, an ARRL proposal.  I wasn't happy with the 1500 PEP limit which was not opposed by the ARRL and am really unhappy with the bandwidth proposal.

I, like Larry and others, don't understand why Division Directors feel they are so much more knowledgeable about what's to come for Amateur Radio than others, the majority of which are non members.  Explain to me how an organization that has approximately 25% of the ham population as members can take things upon itself to propose such a radical change for all in the name of ham radio.

These are some of the reasons that our friend up in the Northeast decided to fight almost all of what the FCC puts forth in the name of the ARRL.  I believe he is overboard, but at least his transmissions follow the gentleman's agreement of AM on frequencies that are popular with AM operators, unlike the ARRL.

Instead of bandwidth proposals, the ARRL should concentrate on recruiting more than 50% of hams as members and at that point institute a system of feedback to the Directors.  Make the Directors focus on what the ham community in it's entirety wants, then they could claim to represent Amateur Radio.  Get them with it Pete.

[K1MVP]

With Ample Room, and if people would adhere to the Gentlemens agreements and Mind their buisness, Width wouldn't be Such a problem...

Misunderstanding Why Width is such a problem Here...

Jack,
 Agree with you 100%--"micro-management" of bandwidth IMO is
 NOT the solution.--common sense would go a long way on this issue.
                                       73, K1MVP,

[K1JJ]

Over the years I could never figure out why some guys run
very restricted audio on AM and say they only care
about running "communications" audio -  "as long as
you can hear me, is all that counts".  

I wonder if it's because they've never been exposed to a
truly hi-fi AM receiver system with the wonderful AM
audio on the band and heard their own restricted audio
played back on it in comparison, are too lazy to modify
their rigs, or maybe just  don't know how to do it - as
an excuse to remain the same.

Personally, I would get tired of getting Yallowy audio
reports and do something about it - or not get on the
air much, which is the usual solution.I notice guys with
clean, hi-fi audio are much more active and seem to
have more fun. [Do blondes and hi-fi AMer's really have
more fun?]  

Even an AM rig running +- 4.5kc  brickwall flat audio
sounds great compared to the stock and distorted  
boat anchors and riceboxes you hear. So little
effort is needed to sound good.. [sigh]

My comments are not meant to criticize anyone, just
wonder why some can be satisified sounding like that
on a mode that showcases its audio as a benefit. SSB
sounds better in the enhanced mode and is narrower
overall than a stock AM boatanchor, so why bother?

[Anyone looking for ways or a plan to modify their stock
rig can ask me on the air for help  - anytime]

BTW, I agree that we need a Canadian style regulations
solution here in the USA. Simple with gentlemen's agreements
where to operate - just like 160M. I hope the FCC gives the ARRL's
proposal a thumbs down just like the last one.  Bad precedent
if it flies...

T

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I wasn't very happy when they dropped the highway speed down to 55 to "save gas" years ago. Maybe we saved gas; maybe we didn't; I don't know but I tried to stay within the rule as best I could.

Pete, this is not about staying within the rules at all! Your good buddies up in Newington, you know David et all, are trying to get the FCC to make new rules! What I am saying is the ARRL is asking the FCC to lower the speed limit! WHY?

Maybe, they feel that the license restructuring proposal before the FCC will pass, adding a lot more hams to the HF bands. If it happened today, approx. 318,318 Tech/Tech+ would move to General, swelling those ranks from 136,808 to 455,126; Advanced would move to Extra, swelling those portions of the bands from 76,418 to 183,005. Adding to that the influx of new digital modes that are, or will be, coming down the road over the next several years, and plus the reality that the HF bands will not expand in the near future, their future vision probably indicates a lot of chaos to the bands unless changes are made to the structure.  One would assume you would try to stabilize the structure before it starts to fall.

And, since the majority of the time I use headphones, whether you’re 3, 4, 5, or 6 kHz, really makes no difference to me.

Well I guess that says it all! There is a dramatic difference between 3 khz and 6 khz in the quality of voice transmissions. There's two possibilities, either your headphones are busted or .... If I couldn't tell the difference between going 30 mph and 60 mph, I supposed I wouldn't care if I was riding in a car or on a horse either!

--Larry

Probably not, but it will take you longer to get somewhere, get wet when it rains, and have bugs in your teeth at the end of your journey.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

well then Pete, If you cant tell the difference thats fine . . . use your headphones . . operate as you wish . . . just don't tell me that I must operate as you wish.

-ap

How you interpret the rules, and if you choose to follow them, is your business, not mine.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Pete,
 If what you say is true, about being "sensitized" much too long that
 "wide is good", and "bigger is better",--maybe qrp`ers would say
 that more power is "bad", es introduce a petition to restrict power
 levels to a "maximum" of 100 watts, OR maybe even 50 watts.
 If you want restricted audio, or low power--fine, the question is
 why should it be "forced" or "jammed" down other people`s throats.
                                           
                                          73, K1MVP :)

Probably no reason why QRP'ers couldn't do that if they felt strongly about it.
At this time, I don't see anybody forcing or jamming anything.

[K1MVP]

WA2CWA wrote:

Maybe, they feel that the license restructuring proposal before the FCC will pass, adding a lot more hams to the HF bands. If it happened today, approx. 318,318 Tech/Tech+ would move to General, swelling those ranks from 136,808 to 455,126; Advanced would move to Extra, swelling those portions of the bands from 76,418 to 183,005. Adding to that the influx of new digital modes that are, or will be, coming down the road over the next several years, and plus the reality that the HF bands will not expand in the near future, their future vision probably indicates a lot of chaos to the bands unless changes are made to the structure.  One would assume you would try to stabilize the structure before it starts to fall.

Ok Pete,
 Then this just "confirms" that its more than "just making room" for
 the new digital modes, as some of us suspected all along.
 It`s also tied to the "new restructuring" proposals, of "automatic
 upgrade" for NCT`s, which many of us thought was also rediculous.

                                          73, K1MVP  

[K1JJ]

Ok Pete,
 Then this just "confirms" that its more than "just
making room" for the new digital modes, as some
of us suspected all along. It`s also tied to the
"new restructuring" proposals, of "automatic
 upgrade" for NCT`s, which many of us thought
was also rediculous.    73, K1MVP  

Yep, from their point of view, it's about getting as many hams
into the hobby and knowing that a certain percentage will
also become league members. [more dues].  "Promoted" hams
means more radio sale upgrades and more QST advertising,
book sales, etc.

It's really no different than any American corporation.  
[and the ARRL is a corporation run just like a for-profit
one despite their 501C  non profit status]

If I were an influential board member or employee of
the ARRL, I might want to make sure that everything
is done to insure its survival, produce better raises
and salaries and make sure it is there to pay my pension
when I retire... [league employees]

So there are probably many decisions made that are
quasi-money oriented. Just because after 80 years they
are still struggling and worth only $4 million or so doesn't
make them TOTALLY incompetent.  :roll:   [maybe they're
worth a little more since the market rallied last year, dunno]

What  bugs me about this bandwidth proposal is that it makes
a mindset and focus on AM, being the widest and getting an
"exception". Later on it is so easy to amend that exception for
elimination totally. Right now it would be very difficult.

T

[W8ER]

Tom,

It's good hearing you weigh in on this. I wish some of the other tall ships would speak their minds.

--Larry ER

[Art]

"How you interpret the rules, and if you choose to follow them, is your business, not mine."

. .  .and when the ARRL realizes they have just as much validity in my business, or avocation, as you do, we will have accomplished something.  However, via the promulgation of regulation the ARRL seeks to inflict their "operating parameters" on me. That is no more acceptable from the ARRL than it is from you, and in my opinion, contrary to the good of the service.

-ap

[k4kyv]

What  bugs me about this bandwidth proposal is that it makes
a mindset and focus on AM, being the widest and getting an
"exception". Later on it is so easy to amend that exception for
elimination totally. Right now it would be very difficult.

Precisely.

Now look again at what  Johnny Johnston wrote in his column in June WorldRadio:

Q: How can we rid our HF bands of AM?

A. That would require an amendment to Section 97.3(c)(5), at least.

W3BE-O-GRAM: That would be much harder done than said.

[K1JJ]

I saw that too, on page 22 of World Radio yesterday, Don.

Didn't know it was Johnny Johnson who answered the
question.

I found it insulting to even print such a question and give
credibility to it. What if someone axed about how to rid CW
from the bands or ssb?

To AM diehards, it's almost like a racial slur.  He picked that
question to field and it appears hasn't changed his bias from
the past.  This is what I mean by it taking little to eliminate
the AM exception later. All you need is a following of AM bashers
like him to get it started.

T

[Jim, W5JO]

I remember sometime back reading a comment filed on another proposal written by Don, K4KYV.  It was well written and concise.  Forgive me Don but I suggest you either write it or be deeply involved.  I would probably sign my name to it after reading if you do.

[Glenn K2KL]

That is an incredibly excellent idea Art!!! Seriously! I would think, given the FCC's reduced resources they would very much be into this approach!

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

[k4kyv]

"... automated, unattended packet (and other digital) "mailboxes"...will "step on" ongoing communications. Robotic stations do not belong on crowded HF bands...period! (Just think of K1MAN in a digital mode!) "

Well said, Phil.

[W2INR]

Art wrote:
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

Art,

I think that approach could be sold to a large majority of  the ham population  too.

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

Good Day Everyone,

 Through all this, and I have operated VHF Packet as a matter of Fact KA3UWW and I set up a 4 port Packet Node some years ago when the Packet bug was all the rage we had it set up here at my place, was operating C-Node VIA an Old Commodore 128, had an old regency mobile unit doing the transmissions and did quite well..

 But it was SLOW..compared to the twisted pair..sure it was fun But, when you consider the Baud rates man it was ancient...anyways Not To Put a Black mark on the operation or put it down in any way, and it is enjoyable facet of the service..

 But Still, what is so Dramatically coming down the pike that entails a Call for RMs with the FCC...

 That's all I want to know, Then when that's satisified, we the members of the Service will fit it in, Common Operational Practicallity will dictate Placement... Cheese and Crackers ARRL Wake Up....