[Boatanchors] Band Width

[ebjr37 at charter.net]

Dear Davaid et al:

The FCC has very vaguely stated something about the bandwidths and, that 
they said to look at the figures in FCC part 2.  The emission indicators 
are specified for a broad range of bandwidths for all emissions 
including SSB.  (Which, as I recall specifies 2.8 khz for the "channel 
width" including a small guard band on both ends of the channel.  Very 
often the center of the channel is specified rather than the suppressed 
carrier frequency, so if you goto FCC part 2, don't get confused.  This 
is evident, in the frequencies of the 60 meter channels, which has 
coinfused some people.

Nothing "absolute" is specified in Part 97, just alluded to! 
Theoretically, what the SSB "hifi" guys are doing broadening the 
channels is most certainly not legal, because of the vagueness of 
"channel width" by Part 97.  AM modulation, as per the old definition 
for .55-1.7 Mhz broadcast emissions is covered in part 2 but the "hi-fi 
SSB" people are "stretching the point" here and they are WAY PAST the 
"normal" SSB bandwidth as specified by manufacturers of amateur gear 
which the "Hi-FI SSB" bunch is violating, for SSB emissions.

Anything that causes a broader than normal SSB bandwidth (about 2.6-2.7 
Khz) is theoretically not pedmitted.  This is what standard the 
transceiver manufacturers are required to meet......however.......if a 
linear amplifier is overdriven by the exciter transmitter, the spurious 
emissions will exceed the 2.8 khz channel width permitted by FCC part 2. 
This makes "splatter" or other distortion products that cause the 
bandwidth to be exceeded for SSB, which is thereby knowingly known, (or 
should be known to the violator, in the case of the "Hi-fi SSB" groups, 
and most definitely known to "QRMers"!  A violation in either case.

I assume this was not more strictly adhered to when Part 97 was drafted. 
WHY?  Maybe because there isn't any "real engineers" left in the FCC, or 
just plain too many political hacks, and bean counters, and lawyers who 
are not interested in "theoretical" things?

As an ARRL "Official Observer" I am alarmed.  But what to do now as the 
bandwidth requirements are so vaguely referred to by Part 97!!  This 
leaves us in a quandry.  Should the "League" pressure the Commission to 
rewrite part 97 and be more specific as should have been done from the 
beginning?  Frequency tolerance and bandwidths have gotten more and more 
"precise" since we old timers were using vacuum tube equipment!  Is 
there and aid to possibly having FCC monitoring stations like there used 
to be?  Maybe the budget will not permit it?  This needs to be attended 
to before it gets completely "out of hand" and will be very hard to 
implement in the future?

73 to all,

Sandy Blaize W5TVW
Amateur Extra Since 1968
2nd Class Ship Telegraph license since 1968
First license was an Amateur Novice in 1951
Was active for many years maintaining ship radio and radar equipment, 
including INMARSAT satellite gear
Also active in the Air National Guard maintaining avionics equipment for 
15 years.



On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:57 AM, David C. Hallam wrote:

> Are there any regulations that specify the maximum band width of ssb 
> transmissions for amateur radio stations south of the border?
>
> David
> KW4DH
>
> -- 
> There are two possible outcomes: if the result confirms the 
> hypothesis, then you've made a measurement.
> If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a 
> discovery.
> Enrico Fermi
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Boatanchors mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Boatanchors at mailman.qth.net
> Message delivered to ebjr37 at charter.net
>
> List Administrator: Duane Fischer, W8DBF
> ** For Assistance: dfischer at usol.com **
>
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html