| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
February 4th 04, 10:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... In article , "Brenda Ann" wrote: Do not the regs state maximum allowable bandwidth? No! -- I would say yes, and no... there don't seem to be strict limits, but Part 97 does state: §97.307 Emission standards. (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. (b) Emissions resulting from modulation must be confined to the band or segment available to the control operator. Emissions outside the necessary bandwidth must not cause splatter or keyclick interference to operations on adjacent frequencies. |
|
#12
February 4th 04, 10:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"M.D." wrote in message . .. "Brenda Ann" wrote in message ... Do not the regs state maximum allowable bandwidth? Here in Canada....6 KHz See: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/vwapj/ric2.PDF/$FILE/r ic2.PDF My my... you folks have some broadcast quality authorizations in the 220 band... |
|
#13
February 4th 04, 11:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Channels? This isnt CB!!
-- HEY! THAT THING GOTTA HEMI! "Bob" wrote in message ... I don't see a problem with those guys. In fact, they only occupy one or two channels and talk about their equalizers without bothering anyone else. Now and then I listen and chuckle at some of the things they do, but heck it's a hobby and we are entitled to enjoy it. There are far worse 'abuses' of ham radio out there. How do you feel about DX stations using split operations, for instance? How about the foreign broadcast stations on 40 meters? Jammers and other annoyances on 2 meters? Profanity, when there are little kids listening? Religious nuts talking about scriptures? Politics? Contests? Special event stations? Nets with no purpose other than checking in and out and mentioning the weather? I could go on. By far, the worst spectrum abusers are the contests. Every weekend the bands are jammed with jerks giving phony signal reports (everyone is 59) and leaving no space for ragchews unless one allows himself to be pushed to a WARC band. 73, Bob |
|
#14
February 4th 04, 11:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote: wrote in message ... In article , "Brenda Ann" wrote: Do not the regs state maximum allowable bandwidth? No! -- I would say yes, and no... there don't seem to be strict limits, but Part 97 does state: §97.307 Emission standards. (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. (b) Emissions resulting from modulation must be confined to the band or segment available to the control operator. Emissions outside the necessary bandwidth must not cause splatter or keyclick interference to operations on adjacent frequencies. Yes Brenda we've hashed this out over and over again, like deja vu all over again. There was a petition to make the changes in FCC regulations and specify bandwidth, but the FCC has not acted on it. It's a old old argument that a few "hams" have taken up because of a few other "hams" are doing somthing that these other "hams" don't like. It's another battle of the titans......I wanna be more powerful than you....... Personally I don't give a rip. The so called "hi-fi" folks bother me far far less than contesters, in fact they don't bother me at all. There are many more important issues and problems in ham radio today than this old fight. I might add that there does appear to be some personal vendettas ongoing in this whole thing which makes it even more flawed. We've heard the experts explain on the air and in comments at length all about bandwidth and how much should be taken up by ssb and why ect ect.....while all that is going on I get on 75 meter phone at night and I hear AM every 10 kc up and down the band taking up 10 kc and more per transmitter and no one seems concerned about that bandwidth and I'm not against AM mind you, I happen to think it's a rich part of ham radio and the folks that are engaged in this part of ham radio should be able to operate without harrasment from others too. I also believe that if we can make room for AM we should be able to make room for this hi fi segment of the ham population. For a few stations and I do mean a few that explore this little facet of the radio hobby there is so much controversy, my heavens don't we have more to think about? I'll go back in my hole now. 73 Dale, K9VUJ -- |
|
#17
February 5th 04, 02:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
M.D. wrote:
"Marty B." wrote in message ... If you been on the HF bands for at least a Decade you will remember the term "Lid" . Now a new Term has arise, the Guy who is wide using the Wider Bandwidth for audio is now called "BAND-HOGS" just a step above the classification of the "Lid" BAND-HOG is a guy who needs more than 3 kc to transmit in SSB and thinking just of himself, and poor operating practice. Hey Marty, I paid for the equipment, I choose to use it any damn way I want. Typical cber attitude. |
|
#18
February 5th 04, 02:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
W6DKN wrote:
The key concepts here are "in accordance with good amateur practice", Unfortunately too many hams today haven't a clue as to what "good amateur radio practice" is. |
|
#19
February 5th 04, 05:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Bill Turner wrote: On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 22:58:16 GMT, wrote: If you would please state the bandwidth for SSB, CW and AM. I'd like it in either cycles or kilocycles (Khz) and also please define communication quality. __________________________________________________ _______ I'd be glad to. SSB bandwidth = the maximum frequency of your own voice, including harmonics and non-sinusoidal waves. AM bandwidth = 2xSSB bandwidth. CW bandwidth varies with WPM, on which there is no limit as far as I know. (might be wrong) And that's why specific numbers of kHz are not stated. Too much voice variation from person to person, especially YLs and younger OPs. -- Bill, W6WRT Well Bill that's not good enough. Too ambiguous. sorry. This is what the petition was going to clear up, but that's tough to do, perhaps that's why the FCC has not acted. Nice try and I know what you're saying but it's just not specific enugh, too much room for argument as you have witnessed numerous times on the air. As I see it the only practical way for the FCC to regulate bandwidth is at the MFG level. Requiring MFGs of radios to be more strict in controlling the bandwidth, key clicks, processor levels, ALC ect ect of the equipment they design and produce. This would take it into a type acceptance area like CB radios, I don't think they want to go there yet. This may also present a problem for homebrewed transmitters. Dale -- |
|
#20
February 6th 04, 04:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No it does not. FCC is afraid to commit to a bandwidth law.
Butch KF5DE Brenda Ann wrote: Do not the regs state maximum allowable bandwidth? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| 1930's Futuristic Wood Radio has been called the "Searchlight radio" by some | Boatanchors | |||
| Once upon a time in America there came to be a giant of an organization called the American Radio Relay League (ARRL). | General | |||
| Once upon a time in America there came to be a giant of an organization called the American Radio Relay League (ARRL). | Policy | |||
| That QRM called CW | Policy | |||
Linear Mode
