[TenTec] FCC Letters for "Enhanced SSB"

Tue May 27 18:08:09 EDT 2003

In the words of the imortal Emily Latella, "Never Mind."

At the request of another list member I read the last couple of lines of the
quoted text and saw the conntection.  For others like me who normally don't
read a page of quoted text it points out the responsibility of having the
correct transmit filter setting to prevent getting one of these compliance
letters.  Ten Tec allows us to decide the setting unlike many other radios
that don't have this variable.

So, sorry for the wasted bandwidth.

Keith Lodahl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tentec-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Keith Lodahl
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 4:47 PM
> To: tentec at contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [TenTec] FCC Letters for "Enhanced SSB"
>
>
> I understand the implications of this to our hobby, and I understand the
> frustration of those involved, but what makes this an issue for this list?
> I read about this on the general lists, and on QRZ, also hear about it on
> the air.  I don't see what makes it on topic for the Ten Tec
> list.  I would
> think it is rather fully covered elsewhere.
>
> Keith Lodahl
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tentec-bounces at contesting.com
> > [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Ron Notarius WN3VAW
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:46 PM
> > To: tentec at contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [TenTec] FCC Letters for "Enhanced SSB"
> >
> >
> > Just FYI:
> >
> > According to the ARRL Web page's FCC Enforcement Letters posted earlier
> > today
> (http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2003/0517.html?nc=1), on
> > May 6th, the FCC withdrew one of the Advisory Notices issued in the
> > "Enhanced SSB" matter... specifically to W4NSG.  The posted
> letter simply
> > stated that the Advisory Notice "was issued to you in error."  And Riley
> > apologized for it's being issued.
> >
> > No further information available, though one wonders why this was
> > withdrawn
> > (ie what was the error?), and if anyone else who received one of the
> > Advisory Notices also got a withdrawl letter.
> >
> > 73, ron wn3vaw
> >
> > "I would like to do 3000 more" -- Sportscaster Guy Junker on his 3000th
> > "Sportsbeat" show.
> > The next night, after his 3001st show, for reasons left unclear,
> > Fox Sports
> > Net Pittsburgh declined to renew his contract & fired him.
> > (Source:  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Saturday, 17 May 2003)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paul Christensen, Esq." <w9ac at arrl.net>
> > To: <tentec at contesting.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 8:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: [TenTec] FCC Letters for "Enhanced SSB"
> >
> >
> > Note that I, W9AC, am one of four culprits named in the article.
> > Absolutely
> > fascinating considering the fact that I have not operated on SSB
> > of any kind
> > since October, 2002.   I am primarily a CW operator and spend
> less than 1%
> > of my time on SSB.   The fact that I authored some of the audio
> > enhancement
> > mods may have contributed to the issuance of the official Notice.
> >  So, where
> > is due-diligence on the part of the FCC when and where it's needed?
> >
> > I am an advocate of the mode (one band, on one frequency), but not the
> > manner in which the FCC is arbitrarily issuing Advisory Notices
> > based on one
> > man's personal opinion rather than on a Notice based on a legal
> memorandum
> > of law.  I have challenged the FCC to produce any case law, particularly
> > appeals to that effect.
> >
> > The "Notices" were issued, because the FCC realizes that a
> citation based
> > solely on a violation of "good operating practice" as prescribed under
> > 97.307 et. seq., will never, ever, pass Constitutional scrutiny
> as it will
> > not meet the two-prong procedural due-process test.
> >
> > That said, his time and for that matter, tax-payer dollars are
> > better spent
> > on enforcing clear violations of the rules (e.g., 75M obscenities, 2M
> > repeaters that do not identify, etc.), rather than arbitrary and
> > capricious
> > personal "opinions" on how to operate a station.   Note that no specific
> > reference to a rule is applied against the operating practice
> in question.
> > Disseminating a letter that tells us to "read the rules" is a bit
> > silly when
> > no convincing violation is occurring.
> >
> > In the future, you will see action taken to the League, for the
> League is
> > the most appropriate place in which to add this activity to the existing
> > ARRL band plan....the same band plan the FCC uses to judge other
> > mode-related operating practices.  AMI successfully added a calling
> > frequency to the band plan and soon enough a new calling
> frequency will be
> > added.  The logic is axiomatic: if AM transmission falls within "good
> > operating practice," then taking an AM signal (from which we
> derive SSB),
> > cutting it in half, and eliminating the carrier, must also
> represent "good
> > operating practice.  The argument I often hear is "Because that's
> > the way it
> > is," or  "because that's the history of AM and SSB."  But if we
> > examine the
> > issue for what it truly is, a matter of bandwidth, then the FCC's logic
> > simply fails.
> >
> > Quite honestly, the FCC does not care about the root issue.
> Recall, that
> > the FCC's Bill Cross, W3TN has repeatedly stood before a group of
> > us and may
> > I paraphrase: "The FCC will no longer rule the amateur radio service by
> > fiat."  The FCC is reaching out to add, alter, and delete
> rules.  The FCC
> > currently places weighted emphasis on the League's band plan as the
> > appropriate place in which to reference all operating modes....and I
> > maintain this is where reconciliation is required.  Codifying bandwidth
> > rules will only hurt the amateur radio service.
> >
> > So, what does any of this have to do with Ten Tec?  Well, if
> > you're an owner
> > of a Jupiter, Pegasus, or Orion and your SSB transmit menu indicates
> > anything more than 2.4 kHz audio bandwidth, guess what?  That Advisory
> > Notice could have had your name on it instead of mine.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > -Paul, W9AC
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Hoffman" <ghoffman at spacetech.com>
> > To: <tentec at contesting.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 20:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: [TenTec] FCC Letters for "Enhanced SSB"
> >
> >
> > > Excellent !
> > >
> > > 73 de Gary, AA2IZ
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "W2AGN" <w2agn at w2agn.net>
> > > To: <tentec at contesting.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 3:55 PM
> > > Subject: [TenTec] FCC Letters for "Enhanced SSB"
> > >
> > >
> > > > The ARRL Web site notes that several "widebanders," a wide SSB
> > > > emission that has bothered HF-Pack operations on 17 meters,
> have been
> > > > put on notice by the FCC's Riley Hollingsworth:
> > > >
> > > > " 'Enhanced SSB' Bandwidths 'Extremely Inconsiderate,' FCC Says (Apr
> > > > 17, 2003) -- The FCC has sent advisory notices to four
> enthusiasts of
> > > > what's become known as 'enhanced SSB'--the practice of engineering
> > > > transmitted single-sideband audio to ..."
> > > > Complete article at
> > > > http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/04/17/102/?nc=1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > +-++-++-++-++-+   John L. Sielke
> > > > |W||2||A||G||N|        http://www.w2agn.net [UPDATED]
> > > > +-++-++-++-++-+    Ex-K3HLU,TF2WKT,W7JEF,W4MPC,N4JS
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > TenTec mailing list
> > > > TenTec at contesting.com
> > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TenTec mailing list
> > > TenTec at contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>