[NLRS] Rule 1.12 discussion

[Paul Beckmann]

Another way to think about it: Do we require everyone to purchase a
GPS-locked 10MHz source and use it for their transverters and
tranceivers?  They are readily available and their use would limit
wasting valuable spectrum space. We don't because a) they are
expensive and b) there is a lot of spectrum space in the microwave
bands.

Why should we require everyone to buy a laser and/or an interference
filter? It may be that, because we have sensory neurons that can
respond to these wavelengths of E-M, they must be "less exotic".
Therefore, to put them on the same scale of difficulty as other E-M
bands, we must make the rules more stringent. What do you think?

73
--Paul, wa0rse

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Paul Beckmann <wa0rse at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>>
>>
>