[Boatanchors] Band Width

[manualman at juno.com]

In the bandwidth proposals (there were two) of roughly 10 years ago:
The ARRL proposed AM maximum bandwidth was stated as 9 KHz along with a
number of other proposals.
The second proposal by another group wanted less rules, no bandwidths
specified, no segregation of data, phone, or CW in the bands, and a few
other things. Basically, turn the bands into the "Wild West". 

After many months of countless responses by the amateur community to the
FCC site, both proposals were pulled.

Obviously, some OO's need more training. I received an e-mail from an OO
several years ago, telling me I had too much carrier on my signal and my
audio could be heard on both upper and lower sideband. I was operating on
75 meters in the AM mode.


But, if you guys read the initial thread, he's asking about stations
"south of the border".
He asked: "Are there any regulations that specify the maximum band width
of ssb 
transmissions for amateur radio stations south of the border? 
David KW4DH"

The only way to find out would be to read the (I'll assume he's talking
about Mexico) Mexico's amateur radio rules and regulations since our FCC
regulations don't apply.

Pete, wa2cwa


On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:30:27 -0600 "Jim Wilhite" <w5jo at brightok.net>
writes:
> As I recall there was an attempt, or at least, discussion of writing 
> rules 
> to do exactly what you described Sandy.  However, it met with a lot 
> of 
> resistance over the ability of amateurs to actually understand how 
> to 
> measure the bandwidth accurately, by a lot of AM operators and the 
> Hi Fi SSB 
> operators.  They used a case in point, the measurement of Peak 
> Power.  Today 
> the great majority do not understand how to measure it nor exactly 
> what the 
> rule meaning is.
> 
> We all know the intent of the rule but, like splatter, it is not 
> clearly 
> understood.  Another case in point is the operation near the band 
> edge.  I 
> regularly hear stations who are so close to the edge that products 
> of their 
> signal is out of band, a no, no in decades past.  I was, and am 
> today, 
> against a very restrictive bandwidth rule because of the lack of 
> knowledge 
> on the part of my peers.   AM operators were against it due to the 
> proposal 
> of ~ 5 KC max which would have been a grandfather clause rather 
> included in 
> the proposed rule.  There are a great number of hams whose bandwidth 
> far 
> exceeds what is necessary for AM operation, not to mention those who 
> over 
> modulate and cause buckshot and splatter.
> 
> What is needed is hams who understand the properties of a 
> technically good 
> signal and the desire to emit such.
> 
> 73
> 
> Jim
> W5JO
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> 
> 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,