"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote

At any rate, so you're bringing up the scenario
that someone outside the FCC would bring up a petition to ban a mode.
Hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that--but why? Why would anyone want to have
a
mode banned? I mean, seriously, what would be gained?

As to "what would be gained", that obviously depends on who is
advancing the petition and what their agenda might be.

There's another more contemporary example than the AM situation. On
20M there is a small group of experimenters who are playing with
something they call "enhanced SSB". This is regular old SSB, but
these guys are enamored of excellent audio quality and spend a great
deal of time (and money) modifying their radios and microphone/audio
systems to gain the very best audio fidelity that they can manage.
This results in bandwidth usage greater than typical SSB (nominally
3KHz) but less than AM (nominally 6KHz).


Hmmm, wouldn't Part 5 of Title 47 be the governing body for this? And, in
Part 5, there is the following:

PART 5--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO SERVICE (OTHER THAN BROADCAST)--Table of Contents
Subpart B--Applications and Licenses
Sec. 5.77 Change in equipment and emission characteristics.
(a) A change may be made in a licensed transmitter without specific
authorization from the Commission provided that the change does not
result in operations inconsistent with any term of the outstanding
authorization for the station involved.

Along with the above, this section goes on to define certain emission
standards, etc. I was just now trying to find the spec on emission
standards (rules?) as they apply to bandwidth. Correct me if I'm wrong--the
topic and rules of experimentation are way outta my league...no pun
intended. Would the above pertain to experimentation in the amateur bands?

By the way, someone might want to clue these folks in to the Clear Speech
speaker. I bought one for my darlin' a few Father's Days ago and--hey--it
is amazing!


This operation, although it consists of only a small number of
enthusiasts (perhaps less than 20 stations) and is situated on only
one small segment of the HF bands, has been the subject of many
complaints to the FCC (for occupying more bandwidth than necessary),


Well, at least more bandwidth than those complaining want to allow, right?
I mean, the topic of bandwidth, or any rule that says "as necessary" is
pretty arbitrary, vague at worst.


and Hollingsworth has gone so far as to make note of it in a speech at
a hamfest last winter. He warned that such use of the spectrum might
lead to FCC rule changes.


I think Hollingsworth interjects with personal opinion on a great many
things and likes to "threaten" with FCC rule changes accordingly. But, your
point is noted.


Now mind you, this "mode" uses less space than an AM signal conveying
the same information. It logically follows that if this "mode" is
banned for being spectrum-inefficient, then the
even-more-spectrum-inefficient DSB AM mode probably would fall to the
same regulatory action. (I'm not suggesting that FCC is always
logical, however grin.)


Well, no one is..."all" the time.


So back to your "Why would anyone want to have a mode banned?"
question. Ask yourself why people have targeted a few stations on
"enhanced SSB" (perhaps 4.5KHz wide), but do not complain about many
more DSB AM stations on the bands (perhaps 6KHz wide)? Could it be
that they simply have a personal agenda which is not evident from the
facts?


Gosh. That's a loaded question with lots of possiblities, including those
related to the culure and tradition of ham radio. Maybe folks feel better
about "attacking" something new than they do about "attacking" time-honored
traditions in ham radio? Then, there's what you said. Then, there's
personal differences.


Now look at the persistent demeaning language here against Morse code
users, and it doesn't take much imagination to expect that a "no more
CW use" petition might show up at the Commission some day soon.


Absolutely true. I can understand why there would be the expectation of a
CW ban being petitioned for. And, I would even fully expect one to
surface--even soon. BUT, I really never thought that the FCC would
entertain the idea to any end where the actual ban would take place. I
would be so compelled on this issue that I would actually file a comment on
it. And, I haven't been stirred by much to actually follow-through with a
comment.


As you know, I don't think Morse testing is any longer a regulatory
necessity, but I am very much a CW-lover and have a low-level (but
growing) concern that the end of Morse testing is only a first step on
some peoples agenda.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Well, I agree that it may be on some peoples' agenda. But, I sure do hope
the FCC wouldn't authorize such a thing.

Kim W5TIT