Re: [Elecraft_K3] New subject: Modulation monitoring

Mel Farrer <farrerfolks@...>

Sorry, Joe,

You missed the point about making what we generate the cleanest, linear, non distorted signal we can even if we generate it in a narrow 1.8 or 2.4 KHz signal.  I said nothing about ESSB or excessive bandwidth, did I?  Nuf said.

Mel, K6KBE

--- On Sat, 12/19/09, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

From: Joe Subich, W4TV
Subject: RE: [Elecraft_K3] New subject: Modulation monitoring
To: Elecraft_K3@...
Date: Saturday, December 19, 2009, 2:22 PM


Since Part 97 specifically precludes "Broadcasting" in the
amateur service and has done so for more than 80 years, the
only possible interpretation is that voice communications
do not need to be of "Broadcast" quality. Therefore the
appropriate standard is commercial (e.g. "communications" )
quality and audio bandwidths exceeding 3 KHz are thus

Those who would use or advocate such excessive bandwidths
are like provocateurs who would yell "fire" in an occupied
theater or hold a skinhead rally in front of a Synagogue.


... Joe, W4TV

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elecraft_K3@ yahoogroups. com
> [mailto:Elecraft_K3@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Paul Christensen
> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 4:43 PM
> To: Elecraft_K3@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft_K3] New subject: Modulation monitoring
> > "The bigger issue is the definition of "commercial" (e.g.
> communications) quality telephony audio as 3000 Hz maximum
> audio frequency in sec 2.202(g). For single sideband,
> suppressed carrier, that makes the maximum legal bandwidth
> 3000 - lowest modulating frequency or somewhere around
> 2.8 KHz (certainly no more than 3 KHz) and would make ESSB
> strictly illegal."
> It is strictly not illegal as there's an even bigger issue.
> Sec. 2.202(g) discusses necessary bandwidth that requires a
> multiple-prong legal analysis since that bandwidth which is
> necessary is wholly based on: (1) a given class of emission;
> (2) the information rate; and (3) the quality required for
> the system employed..." Sec. 2.202(g) provides guidance on
> how to interpolate bandwidth for any given class and
> moreover, it provides multiple examples, including the cited
> example for commercial communications. However, as an
> example, the rule does not in anyway limit the transmission
> of this given class of emission in Part 97 service:
> 4K00J3E
> I would like to see a legal memorandum that parses this rule
> or any other rule and explicitly applies it to bandwidth in
> the Part 97 service. One cannot simply "connect the dots"
> and make their own arbitrary assumptions when interpreting
> the rules. Quite honestly, the issue is ripe for Petition
> for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC. The FCC's response to
> the DR would be very intriguing.
> Paul, W9AC

Join to automatically receive all group messages.