Question About Using AM mode on HF

[W5LZ]

"What I want is what I've always had. Not anarchy. Freedom. You apparently want to take that away."
Apparently, you must have been somewhere I've never been, some place without rules and limits. You have the freedom you've always had, no one has taken anything away from you. That 'freedom' is always obtained by paying a price, always. Part of the 'price' you agreed to was to obey the rules and regulations. Not just with amateur radio but with society in general. Like everyone, you have the freedom to do as you like until it adversely affects someone else. I'm not abridging your rights by saying you should know and obey the rules. I hold myself to that same standard. I'm afraid neither of us is 'special' in that regard, nor is anyone else. There's a very simple solution if you don't like the rules.
- 'Doc

 

[Ovid]

"What I want is what I've always had. Not anarchy. Freedom. You apparently want to take that away."
Apparently, you must have been somewhere I've never been, some place without rules and limits. [...]
There's a very simple solution if you don't like the rules.
- 'Doc

1. You're simply wrong if you think that a list of emission designators means there are modulation bandwidth limits in amateur radio. There aren't, and the Commission has stated so several times when they rejected such proposed rules.

2. When I say I want what I've always had, I just mean that, ever since I was licensed in 1972 (and, actually, long before that), amateurs have had the legal ability within the regulations to transmit audio significantly wider than the numerals in the emission designator lists, including audio that could be considered high fidelity voice. And, in fact, hundreds or thousands of amateurs have actually done so _every single day_ since 1972 and probably much earlier. Listen to 3630 LSB almost any day you choose for real-time proof. If this was somehow "illegal," surely there would have been "bandwidth enforcement" actions since then. Yet there has never been such an action.

Case closed. Wideband audio on amateur radio is 100% legal and within the regulations.

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

Every time there is a contest there are hundreds if not thousands of operators exceeding tbe 1500 watt limit and yet there is no enforcement action taking place. There must not be any power restrictions.

Everyday there is crap happening on a couple select 20m freqs. There must not be any rules against jamming or profanity.

To simply say that it happens without enforcement action therefore it is legal is false and wishful thinking. The FCC could care less how hams interfere with hams despote there being rules on the books. They prefer to let us "self police" without giving us the teeth to do so.



This is why I wish old threads would be automatically locked after a couple months of inactivity. Someone always comes out of the woodwork, digs it up and stirs up a hornets nest.^^ ab v c^^

 

[Ovid]

Every time there is a contest there are hundreds if not thousands of operators exceeding tbe 1500 watt limit and yet there is no enforcement action taking place. There must not be any power restrictions.

Everyday there is crap happening on a couple select 20m freqs. There must not be any rules against jamming or profanity.

To simply say that it happens without enforcement action therefore it is legal is false and wishful thinking. The FCC could care less how hams interfere with hams despote there being rules on the books. They prefer to let us "self police" without giving us the teeth to do so.



This is why I wish old threads would be automatically locked after a couple months of inactivity. Someone always comes out of the woodwork, digs it up and stirs up a hornets nest.^^ ab v c^^

Hi, Captain. There have been numerous enforcement actions relating to unlicensed operation, intentional interference, and excessive power over the years. But, since there are no modulation bandwidth rules, there cannot have been -- and never have been -- enforcement actions relating to regulations that do not exist.

It's not a "hornet's nest." It's just a kind of urban legend -- that audio wider than 3 kHz is somehow "wrong" or "illegal." It needs to be debunked.

73 and good luck in all your radio adventures.

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

That is not what I was referring to about the hornets nest.

 

[W5LZ]

"Case closed. Wideband audio on amateur radio is 100% legal and within the regulations."

I can certainly see why you would want to 'close' this 'case'. That's one of the options used for an unsupportable argument. It tends to get the desired information/view point into 'play', and then takes advantage of people's opinions/attitudes about the so-called argument accepted as some sort of 'proof' that the argument was valid. Good way to put across an unsupportable, non-factual argument! It's been done for a very long time that way in the popular press. (And at the risk of getting 'dirty', a very good example of what we're fed by politicians.)
I do have to agree with you on one point though. The 'case is closed', part. I'm finished with it, no sense trying to correct someone who obviously knows he's incorrect to start with and want's to advance a silly idea for their own purpose. If you don't like a 'rule' and want to change it there's really is a 'set'/'right' procedure to do that changing. It isn't easy, but it's established and has precedent.
- 'Doc

 

[Ovid]

Well, I am rather a newbie on this forum, so if I have stirred any nests that shouldn't have been stirred, I apologize for that.

But, over the years, I have asked at least a dozen of these "Regulation Charlies" who believed that there were general modulation bandwidth limits in amateur radio to show me the rule -- but none of them could; not in 1983, not in 1993, not in 2003, and not now.

There is no such rule, and I think it's important for every amateur to know that. If a fellow ham starts up a 5-kHz-wide SSB QSO (or 10-kHz-wide AM QSO) on an empty swathe of spectrum in any band, he's doing nothing wrong, and people who arrive later are bound not to intentionally interfere with his QSO or fire up in his bandwidth until he's done.

Of course, the same is true in reverse: If there's no clear area of the band to fit such a signal, the fidelity enthusiast is bound to reduce his bandwidth or wait until there is, and not splash over on existing QSOs. The rule against intentional interference does indeed exist -- and, even if it didn't, I think the part of the amateur's code that states that "The amateur is considerate; never knowingly operating in such a way as to lessen the pleasure of others" should always apply.

 

[hookedon6]

... I was licensed in 1972 ...Case closed....

blah, blah, blah,....... there is a difference between 41 years of experience and 6 months of experience 82 times.<gotproof>

the U.S. system of emission regulation is outdated and arcane, the Canadian system makes much more sense.

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

blah, blah, blah,....... there is a difference between 41 years of experience and 6 months of experience 82 times.<gotproof>

the U.S. system of emission regulation is outdated and arcane, the Canadian system makes much more sense.

You just want to be able to work all that DX on phone below your own phone sub-bands with having to resort to split don't you?

 

[Watergate]

You just want to be able to work all that DX on phone below your own phone sub-bands with having to resort to split don't you?

Rub it in Captain. I think the U.S. hams would be willing to work out a trade.

For one week we get to use your emission regulations, and in return, we will send you Pierce Morgan, and we will give you back Tom Green.

This should work our well for everyone. Tom can go home, and you and Pierce share a queen.

We're keeping Shatner though.

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

Oh jeesh. You scared me for a minute. I glanced down and saw Shatner. I thought you were sending him back too.

 

[W5LZ]

... well, hang on a minute, I'm sure we could think of something to swap him for.
- 'Doc

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

No......doc. You.......can.............keep him.

 

[Watergate]

... well, hang on a minute, I'm sure we could think of something to swap him for.
- 'Doc

We would need an official state apology from Canada for Dan Akroyd's performance in Caddy Shack 2.

I would like to apologize on behalf of all Americans for that movie being produced.