Rob Atkinson ranchorobbo at gmail.com
Thu Oct 31 07:08:16 EDT 2013

Pete, you can repeat that all you want, but at this time ARRL is going
ahead with a petition to FCC to limit the bandwidth of digital
transmissions.   I think that measure is exceedingly myopic.   It runs
into all of the technical problems that partly lead to the nutty
attempt to limit AM and SSB bandwidths back in 2005.   The ARRL just
can't leave well enough alone.  I think they are terrified of being
viewed as irrelevant to ham radio so they must continue to come up
with some petition for a new rule, that seeks to find a non-existent
problem, every two years or so.

In the case of the digital bandwidth limit, (which is a proxy here for
AM bandwidth) once again, how will any average ham accurately measure
their bandwidth to insure compliance?  More important, why are all the
other rules regarding avoidance of QRM and spectral purity suddenly
not good enough?

In the analog world, such problems are dealt with 99% of the time by
getting a station ID and telling the operator he is causing QRM or his
transmitter is malfunctioning and is generating splatter.

This could also work, IF digital stations were required to provide an
analog ID at the end of every transmission.  A mere automatic fast CW
id such as "de K5UJ" would be enough.  Then, most hams would know who
the operator is whether they have digital decoding equipment or not,
and they'd also know the emissions are amateur radio station emissions
(it isn't obvious usually) and QRM and super wide bandwidth noise
could be handled like any other offending analog mode transmission
without the need for any numerical bandwidth law.

I intend to file these comments in a different form with the FCC at
the appropriate time and encourage others to weigh in as well.
I believe a bandwidth limit law is bad news regardless of the mode.
The IARU can go off and scribble anything they want.   We deal with
the FCC here.



On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:11 AM,  <manualman at juno.com> wrote:
> This current plan, at least for the HF bands, deviates very little from
> the past plans that have been around for a number of years. The primary
> emphasis on this plan seems to be on the VHF, UHF, SHF amateur
> frequencies which were addressed very little, or not at all, in previous
> plans.
> Pete, wa2cwa

More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 19 Jan 2018.