[NLRS] Rule 1.12 discussion

[Paul Beckmann]

Exactly, Ed!

There is always a goal to narrow our use of spectrum space to optimal.
Perhaps the issue here is uncertainty over "good amateur practice"
when it comes to this band of E-M radiation. We have agreed lately on
a decent level of phase noise and gross frequency stability in our HF
transmitters as "good amateur practice". We have relaxed requirements
for "good practice" as the frequencies increase. This isn't due to a
lack of knowledge or physical limitations but simple economics and
time available to a ham in their avocation. This is the case to be
made for not REQUIRING that someone by a 5nm interference filter
and/or exotic light source to be able to participate in an ARRL event.

The current discussion seems to be hammering on the edges of what we
are willing to accept as good amateur practice in this E-M spectrum
slice. I also understand that it is a political discussion surrounding
contesters and their strategies. Those issues are beyond my
understanding, I'm afraid, so I'll stick to the simpler topics.

I can imagine in that future hams will be complaining about light
pollution from car dealership lots messing up their communication
attempts in the same way that current amateurs have to deal with
power-pole insulator noise!

73
--Paul, wa0rse

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Marciniak, Ed <emarciniak at mnits.net> wrote:
> From part 97:
>
> §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.
>
> Good amateur practice would be to follow this guideline without regard to specific frequency. Necessary bandwidth is becoming smaller through the improvements in technology.
>
> With filters bandwidths available on the order of a few nm, and sources of the same or better frequency stability, what is the case to be made for a larger occupied bandwidth?
>
>