|[AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition|
manualman at juno.com
manualman at juno.com
Sun May 15 14:29:43 EDT 2016
The only reason I can think of to not limit the bandwidth is that it
typically makes one sound better (for whatever that's worth). However, if
you don't have a great sounding voice to start with, it won't make any
difference. The implication in the proposal is that SSB signals probably
could have a maximum bandwidth of 4 KHz. Overall, all of this, if
applied, would just eat up band space and generate tons of adjancent
channel interference. Frequency separation between adjacent transmitting
stations would, most likely, have to be increased to prevent
As far as the CW sub-bands (80, 40, 15 meters), other then 60 meters,
they're not really exclusive. They'e shared with RTTY and data.
On Sun, 15 May 2016 09:36:00 -0500 mark <lexnonscripta at usa.com> writes:
> Thank You for this information.
> I would propose that those of us who wish to respond to this
> become better acquainted with reasons NOT to limit the bandwidth, in
> whatever form we can. Perhaps people a little more knowledgeable on
> subject can offer a few points as to why this is a bad idea, as well
> reasons to promote wider bandwidths. We dont have to merely give
> reasons in opposition, but benefits.
> Once a list is compiled, we can write individual letters referencing
> Just a thought.
> Mark KD9CXH - formerly KA9FBX
> > AM operators:
> > As many know by now, a ham in Missouri, James E. Whedbee N0ECN,
> > filed a petition for a rule change that is described as having to
> > with something harmless called a "symbol rate."
> > The reality is that it is a stealth bandwidth limit petition.
> > in the text at paragraph 17 is a clause that would limit all
> > phone below 28.5 MHz to 8 kc at the -20 dB points:
> > 17. Petitioner further proposes that for Voice and Image modes
> > 1.8 MHz, the 20 dB
> > bandwidth be limited to 1300 Hertz (i.e., Codec 2 digital voice);
> > between 1.8 and 29.5 MHz, the
> > 20 dB bandwidths be limited to 8000 Hertz (i.e.,
> > analog AM voice); ...
> > Here we go again just like 10 years ago with the failed
> "regulation by
> > bandwidth" proposal from ARRL.
> > For all the same reasons, we need to be against this by filing
> > comments with FCC, who currently can't even catch a lot of the
> > deliberate QRM and guys running 5 KW RF amplifiers. Imagine
> > to bandwidth limit your HT-9 or Gates broadcast rig. Oh, it can
> > probably be done in some way, but do we need it? Does every AM
> > operator need this regardless of band conditions, time of day,
> > level, and modulation method because some guy who doesn't even seem
> > be active thinks we need it (or he needs it).
> > The ARRL news report is below with more information.
> > 73
> > Rob
> > K5UJ
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 19 Nov 2017.