Thanks for the insight, Paul. I too was hoping this wouldn't happen, and in
fact I said earlier I wasn't going to do this. However, when my two favorite
modes are "trashed" and comments are made that they should be made illegal, I
cannot stay silent. If someone attempted to seriously propose that CW be made
illegal, I'm sure the roar would be both instantaneous and deafening (after
all, simply suggesting the elimination of the code test caused a similar
reaction). There is nothing wrong with the rules regarding BW as they are, and
intentional QRM is and has been against the rules forever. It doesn't matter
what your occupied BW is, if you QRM someone, you're wrong.
73,
Joe, N3JI
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Christensen <w9ac@arrl.net>
To: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>; AMPS <amps@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2006 2:21:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Amps] Maximum RF output in practical application: 4-250A
> With voice modulation, it has been proven repeatedly that 3 KHz is
> more than adequate to reasonably reproduce the human voice with
> sufficient intelligibility for communications service. *YOU* do
> not get to determine the "necessary bandwidth." That is determined
> by good engineering practice. If choose to use full carrier DSB AM,
> the bandwidth necessary is no more than 6 KHz (+/- 3 KHz). +/-5
> or +/-6 KHz is being a spectrum hog.
I was hoping that this discussion wasn't going to morph into one about
regulatory bandwidth but...
With all due respect Joe, even Hollingsworth concedes the ambiguity of
97.307(a). I believe he has generally stopped issuing bandwidth-related
Advisory Notices to American operators unless the excessive bandwidth is
related to IMD and /or spurious products (e.g., mis-tuned amplifier), and
not to those transmissions which are intentionally wider than 3 kHz as a
matter of increased *frequency response.* However, the addition of the
added frequency response may in fact produce those distortions which in turn
creates a reasonable basis for issuing a formal notice (I was thinking ahead
of W8JI's response on this one <g>).
Pursuant to my last written correspondence with Hollingsworth on the matter,
as long as the intentional AM & SSB frequency response of transmissions
occur well outside uncrowded band conditions and adjacent interference to
pre-existing communications does not occur, then these transmissions are
perfectly allowable under the current rules. Unfortunately, there seemingly
is always one or two bad apples that ruin things for others.
Section 97.307(a) is one of many flexible rules in which hard barriers do
not exist for several reasons: (i) most amateurs do not have the skills, nor
the resources to accurately measure bandwidth; (ii) to codify bandwidth
requires a reasonable means of measurement to defend one's self against
bogus complaints to the FCC; and (iii) the spirit of the amateur service
rests in, among other things, with the fostering of experimentation. To
place hard limits on bandwidth necessarily restricts some future use of
technological innovation and arguably, may discourage experimentation.
One can make a legal, rational argument (as I think the other Joe is
attempting) that by strict definition, the minimum bandwidth necessary for
communications can vary widely. Lawyers make a living out of parsing the
meaning of governmental rules, statutes, and contractual terms and
conditions -- Like this one:
Part 97.307(a):
"No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than
necessary for the information rate and emission type being
transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice."
The issue is this: If my intent is to transmit with an "information rate"
of ITU 6K00J3E, then by strict definition of Section 97.307(a), I should not
be transmitting with a bandwidth that exceeds 6kHz, in accordance with "good
engineering practice" for that *particular* information rate. The rule does
not expressly forbid the use of bandwidths in excess of 2, 3, or even 6 kHz.
The rules could have long ago expressly forbid the use of such bandwidth.
If the FCC wanted to place hard limits on SSB or AM transmissions they could
have included it in the CFR. The League's relatively recent, misguided
attempt to regulate by bandwidth would have been the first of any such
strict limits to the American HF AM and SBB amateur modes of service.
In cases of ambiguity, federal due process demands that the less restrictive
interpretation is applied to the rule. These arguments go on every day
concerning new state and federal legislation. In fact most municipalities
have their own city attorney's office whose job it is to function as an
interpreter to statutory construction. Here in Jacksonville, that consists
of a team of attorneys on the city's payroll.
The reality is this: If I hear W4TV transmitting with what appears to be
more bandwidth than is allowed by some future rule, all that is necessary
for the FCC to issue a formal Advisory Notice is the receipt of my one (1)
complaint. The FCC need not investigate the source, nor the veracity of the
complaint - and typically doesn't. The FCC is under an obligation to
respond and act. W4TV is then left with the defense to prove that he was
compliant. And exactly what evidence is W4TV going to produce that he was
compliant on the date and time of the alleged infraction? Answer: None.
Paul, W9AC
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|