Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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...) |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ARRL Admits Mistakes in Regulation By Bandwidth Proposal | Policy | |||
Open Letter to K1MAN | Policy | |||
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx | |||
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | General | |||
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx |