[OFARC] Fwd: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth petition

Sun May 15 17:01:02 EDT 2016

Whedbee is a constant commenter to the FCC with some occasionally good  
ideas but mostly is off base seeming to generate a fix in search of a  problem. 
  Utilization of the band is light enough where the existing  allocations 
are sufficient and so this is just what we need is voice  in CW band.  

In a message dated 5/15/2016 12:20:13 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
ars.w5omr at gmail.com writes:

A different take on the bandwidth limit proposal.  
Geoff/W5OMR  
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Rob"
Date: May  15, 2016 7:44 AM
Subject: [AMRadio] New analog phone bandwidth  petition
> AM operators:
>
> As many know by now, a ham in  Missouri, James E. Whedbee N0ECN, has
> filed a petition for a rule  change that is described as having to do
> with something harmless  called a "symbol rate."
>
> The reality is that it is a stealth  bandwidth limit petition.  Buried
> in the text at paragraph 17 is  a clause that would limit all analog
> phone below 28.5 MHz to 8 kc at  the -20 dB points:
>
> 17.   Petitioner further proposes  that for Voice and Image modes below
> 1.8 MHz, the 20  dB
>
> bandwidth be limited to 1300 Hertz (i.e., Codec 2 digital  voice);
> between 1.8 and 29.5 MHz, the
>
> 20 dB bandwidths  be limited to 8000 Hertz (i.e., double-sidebanded
> analog AM voice);  ...
>
>
> Here we go again just like 10 years ago with the  failed "regulation by
> bandwidth" proposal from ARRL.
>
>  For all the same reasons, we need to be against this by filing
>  comments with FCC, who currently can't even catch a lot of the
>  deliberate QRM and guys running 5 KW RF amplifiers.   Imagine  having
> to bandwidth limit your HT-9 or Gates broadcast rig.   Oh, it can
> probably be done in some way, but do we need  it?  Does every AM
> operator need this regardless of band  conditions, time of day, power
> level, and modulation method because  some guy who doesn't even seem to
> be active thinks we need it (or he  needs it).
>
> The ARRL news report is below with more  information.
>
>
> 73
> Rob
> K5UJ 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
>  ARLB016 Missouri Radio Amateur Petitions FCC to Designate "Symbol
>  Communication" Subbands
>
> James E. Whedbee, N0ECN, of Gladstone,  Missouri, has petitioned the
> FCC to designate Morse (radiotelegraphy)  Amateur Radio band segments
> as "symbol communication" subbands. The  FCC has invited comments on
> his Petition for Rule Making (RM-11769),  filed on May 2. Arguing
> that retaining the current regime of "legacy"  CW subbands has proven
> to be grossly inefficient, Whedbee said he'd  like to see the FCC
> delete all privilege restrictions that limit any  part of the Amateur
> Radio spectrum to Morse code to the exclusion of  other modes.
>
> RM-11769 can be found on the web at,
> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001692464  .
>
> "Nostalgia for retention of Morse code telegraphy-only  subbands is
> also an insufficient reason to avoid moving forward to  [the]
> elimination of such subbands, because nothing about this  Petition
> suggests the elimination of the mode itself, only that it not  be the
> sole authorized mode in the subject subbands," Whedbee told the  FCC.
>
> Whedbee characterized CW-only subbands as "an excessive  regulatory
> constraint, as well as a poor use of the spectrum  concerned." He
> proposed that the FCC's Part 97 rules reflect the  "ultimate form of
> communication reproduced at the receiving end." As  he explained it,
> his regulatory scheme would break down modes into  three categories -
> "symbol communication mode" - for CW, digital, and  other emission
> modes that reproduce a discrete symbol on the receiving  end - "voice
> mode," and "image mode."
>
> "[C]ontinuing  regulation by specific emission designator is proving
> to be onerous  with changes to the state of the art," Whedbee said.
> "Accordingly, to  continue developing the state of the art in
> radiocommunications,  Amateur Radio needs to clearly get away from
> regulating in that  fashion and return to consideration of what the
> receiving end of the  communication reproduces."
>
> He proposed that where the Part 97  rules refer to exclusive
> radiotelegraphy allocations - or subbands -  privileges be changed to
> reflect symbol communication modes. Where the  rules prohibit voice
> and image modes, he would revise the rules to  reflect symbol
> communication modes. In situations where current rules  prohibit
> symbol communication modes other than Morse, that voice and  image
> modes would be permitted, "with an exception for manually  keyed"
> radiotelegraphy.
>
> For example, he would drop the  distinction between 75 meters and 80
> meters, authorizing symbol  communication modes between 3.5 MHz and
> 3.65 MHz, and voice and image  modes between 3.65 MHz and 4 MHz, with
> manual radiotelegraphy  authorized throughout the band.
>
> Whedbee told the FCC that, if  his Petition is accepted for filing
> and put on public notice, he would  submit an appendix spelling out
> proposed service rules as part of his  Petition.
>
> Commenters have 30 days to respond to Whedbee's  Petition.
> NNNN
>  /EX

______________________________________________________________
OFARC  mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ofarc
Help:  http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post:  mailto:OFARC at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by:  http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list:  http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to  gammamann at aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/ofarc/attachments/20160515/edd807d4/attachment-0001.html>