[Boatanchors] Petition to eliminate exclusive CW bands

[Glen Zook]

I am not referring to any specific item.  What I was noting was that there are definitely many regulations that affect amateur radio that are in other Parts of 47 CFR.  As for phone operation, 47 CFR Part 97 Section 97.307(f)(1) and (f)(2) read as follows:


(f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in §97.305(c) of this part.


(1) No angle-modulated emission may have a modulation index greater than 1 at the highest modulation frequency.


(2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission.


47 CFR Part 2 Section 2.202(g)(II)(2) reads as follows:



| 2. Telephony (Commercial Quality) |
| Telephony double-sideband | Bn = 2M | M = 3000, Bandwidth = 6000 Hz = 6 kHz | 6K00A3E |




Note that the emission is for COMMERCIAL QUALITY, not "amateur radio quality".  There is a slight difference.  The amateur radio regulations state only A3E emission and NOT 6K00A3E.  Emission 8K00A3E is allowed for "sound broadcasting".  The "M" indicates maximum modulation frequency in Hz.  For 6K00A3E the maximum modulation frequency is 3000 Hz and for 8K00A3E the maximum modulation frequency is 4000 Hz. It is assumed that amateur radio emissions should attempt to comply with commercial standards when possible.  However, the FCC does allow some variation within the Amateur Radio Service.  Modulation frequencies above 3000 Hz are really not needed for voice communications and modulation frequencies above 4000 Hz certainly result in bandwidths that are excessive.


The vast majority of modern amateur radio equipment does limit the maximum modulation frequency to 3000 Hz and it is easy to limit even the oldest equipment to no more than 4000 Hz.  Most male voices have a frequency range of around 300 Hz to 1800 Hz that contain the most effective "power" and the energy fall rapidly down to 2000 Hz and disappears completely by 4000 Hz.  Most female voices extend the upper limit to around 2600 Hz for the most effective "power" falling rapidly down to 2800 Hz and disappearing completely by just over 4000 Hz.  As such, having a limit of 3000 Hz does not present any limitation on the quality of voice communications and a limit of 4000 Hz definitely is not excessive.


But, all that aside, persons operating in the Amateur Radio Service are required to comply with 47 CFR Part 1, 47 CFR Part 2, and 47 CFR Part 15 unless regulations in 47 CFR Part 97 state otherwise.


The primary objection to the ARRL's bandwidth petition was that it would allow WinLink operation throughout the "CW" portion of the bands which would almost certainly "wipe out" the band for persons not using that mode.  Of course, the vast number of persons using WinLink modes would be utilizing the Internet without having to pay for a commercial connection.


 Glen, K9STH 
Website: http://k9sth.net

      From: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo at gmail.com>
 To: Glen Zook <gzook at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Jim Wiley <jwiley at gci.net>; Boat Anchors List <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>; manualman <manualman at juno.com>
 Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 12:23 PM
 Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Petition to eliminate exclusive CW bands
   
No he's not correct, not about bandwidth anyway.  You all can blather
forever until pigs fly, but read this:  the bandwidth thing was
decided 10 years ago when ARRL tried to have it be 9 kc for AM and it
got "voted down" by an overwhelming number of negative comments filed
in the FCC ECFS.  It stayed as a non-quantified specification in the
rules for the ARS.  That, is the Bandwidth FACT.  If you lie awake at
night because someone somewhere might actually have good transmit
audio, instead of sounding like a kazoo in a tin can, then file
another petition.  We'll go through all the same hullabaloo all over
again with all the same reasons why it isn't a good idea.  Anyway, I
have things to do.

73

Rob
K5UJ

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Glen Zook <gzook at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sorry, but he is correct!