Jim Hampton wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/?nc=1

Note how much wider the 'phone bands would become under the proposal.


73 de Jim, N2EY


Hello, Jim

Well, does this mean an SSB signal with either reduced or full carrier so I
can use a 9 KHz audio bandwidth (better than a 4.5 KHz bandwidth).
Audioooooo ...

No.

Of course, one could use the 4.5 KHz (nice audio) bandwidth with double
sideband, full carrier, but shift the carrier 90 degrees for interesting
effects too ...

Yep. Of course it doesn't explain why it's OK to run AM at a bandwidth
of 9 kHz but not some new data mode at a bandwidth of 4.5 kHz.

Where's my sideswiper?

Yep.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(yes I got the "10 meter" joke...)

wrote in message
oups.com...

Jim Hampton wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/15/1/?nc=1

Note how much wider the 'phone bands would become under the proposal.


73 de Jim, N2EY


Hello, Jim

Well, does this mean an SSB signal with either reduced or full carrier
so I
can use a 9 KHz audio bandwidth (better than a 4.5 KHz bandwidth).
Audioooooo ...

No.

Of course, one could use the 4.5 KHz (nice audio) bandwidth with double
sideband, full carrier, but shift the carrier 90 degrees for interesting
effects too ...

Yep. Of course it doesn't explain why it's OK to run AM at a bandwidth
of 9 kHz but not some new data mode at a bandwidth of 4.5 kHz.

Where's my sideswiper?

Yep.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(yes I got the "10 meter" joke...)


Hello, Jim

I'm going to have to really read up on the proposal. Why 9 KHz AM and not
allow a data mode at 4.5 KHz doesn't make a whole lot of sense; then again,
we are discussing government involvement in which case one shouldn't expect
a whole lot of sense anyway.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA