|[AMRadio] The FCC's "Ham Guy" to Retire on April 3|
ranchorobbo at gmail.com
Fri Apr 3 16:13:54 EDT 2015
correction: Maybe it was 9 kc, but same nightmare.
I meant 4.5 kc, 9 total.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo at gmail.com> wrote:
> The ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" proposal would have been the end
> of AM as we know it. I won't get into the whole blow by blow here.
> Anyone who operates AM with 90% of all the AM rigs out there knows
> that having -6 dB at 3 kc on each side of carrier would have been a
> nightmare. Maybe it was 9 kc, but same nightmare.
> "bandwidth" is and was not the problem. We're doing okay keeping a
> reasonable bandwidth. Yes there are a handful of egregiously wide
> analog problems and scofflaws but those are only a few out of tens of
> thousands of active hams. The problem is that digital "white noise"
> is not a good neighbor right alongside or on top of an analog QSO, and
> they don't have to ID in a way that can be detected by a ham with a
> regular superhet receiver so you can't even contact them to inform
> them of their inconsiderate operating. There should either be some
> sort of analog ID requirement, or they should be in their own sub-band
> by mode, not bandwidth. Digital Mode in this context means any high
> speed data rate; not 60 wpm baudot RTTY for example.
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 23 Nov 2017.