[AMRadio] Is AM a special case, or is it "just another mode"?

[Donald Chester]

The issue of "special case" vs. "just another mode" arose in the ensuing
discussion that devolved into a flame war on another message board, and was
not part of the QST editorial.
>From past history, the AM community is justifiably nervous whenever there is
any talk of specific bandwidth limits , particularly when the plan invokes
Docket 20777. Perhaps these issues are unrelated ad should be the topics of
a separate discussions.
 
One approach to avoid enumerated bandwidth limitation would be to remove the
baud limit as Sumner proposed, but then follow the example of the provision
that first allowed NBFM to be used on the HF phone bands, with a vague
specification that a "digital" transmission not exceed the bandwidth of
regular wide-shift Baudot RTTY, which has been permitted on the amateur
bands since shortly after WWII.
 
If 2.8 kHz digital signals are to be allowed in the CW bands, what is the
point of continuing the sub-band nonsense anyway? They might just as well
allow SSB as well, or better still, go the route the rest of the world has
taken and eliminate sub-bands altogether and let amateurs work it out
amongst themselves with voluntary band plans.

I have no interest in "digital" at the present time, but what concerns me is
that if a petition is submitted, there is nothing to limit any resulting
rulemaking docket to what was originally proposed. Right now, there seems to
be more opposition within the general amateur community to "ESSB" than there
is to AM, and those who are so vehemently opposed to hi-fi SSB might grab
this and run with it, and try to drum up support for extending the specific
2.8 kHz bandwith limit to SSB as well, while they are at it. Then, that
would naturally imply a 5.6 kHz limit to AM. So you can easily see where
this might go.
 
That 2.8 kHz limit on 60m is supposedly there to subject amateurs to the
same technical standards that exist with the government services we share
the "band" with. From the outset I was nervous when this was imposed on 60m,
that once the precedent was established in the amateur rules, it could
eventually work its way into the other bands.  We need to make sure this
doesn't turn out to be the next step.

OTOH, there is no guarantee the FCC would even go along with this. Now that
most commercial and government traffic is via satellite, I don't think the
FCC attaches enough importance to the HF part of the spectrum, that the
agency would be willing to take on the additional task of further
micro-managing amateur radio, or CB for that matter, beyond keeping
transmissions from those "services" from interfering with users outside our
allocated bands. This is especially true following the "Sequester". Note how
they de-licensed CB decades ago and now take so little interest in enforcing
Part 15 regulations to limit harmful interference from spurious emissions
produced by power lines and consumer junk like plasma TVs and touch lamps,
and the FCC seemed perfectly willing to allow BPL to trash up the entire HF
spectrum. Back in the days when the monitoring stations were fully manned,
amateur regulations were strictly enforced and the FCC was so nit-picky
about the rules, HF spectrum was essential to strategic communications and
commercial traffic, and a few hams or CBers with dirty signals could do real
damage. Now, about all that would be impacted would be broadcast radio and
TV. Even OTA TV is now used by a minority of viewers with the rest relying
on cable, so TVI isn't the major issue it used to be. Most broadcast
listening these days is done in the car, so fixed noise sources would have
limited impact on broadcast radio as well. Therefore, it is doubtful that
the FCC would be enthusiastic about getting involved with amateur HF
spectrum matters if it appears that it might cause them more hassle.


Don k4kyv