RadioBanter - Hi-Fi AudioPhiles... Called BAND HOGS

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Swap (https://www.radiobanter.com/swap/)

- - Hi-Fi AudioPhiles... Called BAND HOGS (https://www.radiobanter.com/swap/54488-hi-fi-audiophiles-called-band-hogs.html)

wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

Do not the regs state maximum allowable bandwidth?

No!
--

I would say yes, and no... there don't seem to be strict limits, but Part 97
does state:

§97.307 Emission standards.
(a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than
necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in
accordance with good amateur practice.

(b) Emissions resulting from modulation must be confined to the band or
segment available to the control operator. Emissions outside the necessary
bandwidth must not cause splatter or keyclick interference to operations on
adjacent frequencies.

"M.D." wrote in message
. ..

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

Do not the regs state maximum allowable bandwidth?

Here in Canada....6 KHz See:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/vwapj/ric2.PDF/$FILE/r
ic2.PDF

My my... you folks have some broadcast quality authorizations in the 220
band...

Channels? This isnt CB!!

--
HEY! THAT THING GOTTA HEMI!
"Bob" wrote in message
...
I don't see a problem with those guys. In fact, they only occupy one or
two
channels and talk about their equalizers without bothering anyone else.
Now
and then I listen and chuckle at some of the things they do, but heck it's
a
hobby and we are entitled to enjoy it.

There are far worse 'abuses' of ham radio out there. How do you feel
about
DX stations using split operations, for instance? How about the foreign
broadcast stations on 40 meters? Jammers and other annoyances on 2
meters?
Profanity, when there are little kids listening? Religious nuts talking
about scriptures? Politics? Contests? Special event stations? Nets
with
no purpose other than checking in and out and mentioning the weather?

I could go on. By far, the worst spectrum abusers are the contests.
Every
weekend the bands are jammed with jerks giving phony signal reports
(everyone is 59) and leaving no space for ragchews unless one allows
himself
to be pushed to a WARC band.

73, Bob

In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

Do not the regs state maximum allowable bandwidth?

No!
--

I would say yes, and no... there don't seem to be strict limits, but Part 97
does state:

§97.307 Emission standards.
(a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than
necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in
accordance with good amateur practice.

(b) Emissions resulting from modulation must be confined to the band or
segment available to the control operator. Emissions outside the necessary
bandwidth must not cause splatter or keyclick interference to operations on
adjacent frequencies.

Yes Brenda we've hashed this out over and over again, like deja vu all
over again. There was a petition to make the changes in FCC regulations
and specify bandwidth, but the FCC has not acted on it. It's a old old
argument that a few "hams" have taken up because of a few other "hams"
are doing somthing that these other "hams" don't like. It's another
battle of the titans......I wanna be more powerful than you.......
Personally I don't give a rip. The so called "hi-fi" folks bother me
far far less than contesters, in fact they don't bother me at all.
There are many more important issues and problems in ham radio today
than this old fight. I might add that there does appear to be some
personal vendettas ongoing in this whole thing which makes it even more
flawed.

We've heard the experts explain on the air and in comments at length all
about bandwidth and how much should be taken up by ssb and why ect
ect.....while all that is going on I get on 75 meter phone at night and
I hear AM every 10 kc up and down the band taking up 10 kc and more per
transmitter and no one seems concerned about that bandwidth and I'm not
against AM mind you, I happen to think it's a rich part of ham radio and
the folks that are engaged in this part of ham radio should be able to
operate without harrasment from others too. I also believe that if we
can make room for AM we should be able to make room for this hi fi
segment of the ham population.

For a few stations and I do mean a few that explore this little facet of
the radio hobby there is so much controversy, my heavens don't we have
more to think about?

I'll go back in my hole now.

73
Dale, K9VUJ
--

M.D. wrote:

"Marty B." wrote in message
...

If you been on the HF bands for at least a Decade you will remember
the term "Lid" .
Now a new Term has arise, the Guy who is wide using the Wider Bandwidth
for audio is now called "BAND-HOGS" just a step above the classification
of the "Lid"

BAND-HOG is a guy who needs more than 3 kc to transmit in SSB
and thinking just of himself, and poor operating practice.

Hey Marty,

I paid for the equipment, I choose to use it any damn way I want.

Typical cber attitude.

W6DKN wrote:

The key concepts here are "in accordance with good amateur practice",

Unfortunately too many hams today haven't a clue as to what "good
amateur radio practice" is.

In article ,
Bill Turner wrote:

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 22:58:16 GMT, wrote:

If you would please state the bandwidth for SSB, CW and AM.

I'd like it in either cycles or kilocycles (Khz) and also please define
communication quality.

__________________________________________________ _______

I'd be glad to.

SSB bandwidth = the maximum frequency of your own voice, including
harmonics and non-sinusoidal waves.

AM bandwidth = 2xSSB bandwidth.

CW bandwidth varies with WPM, on which there is no limit as far as I
know. (might be wrong)

And that's why specific numbers of kHz are not stated. Too much voice
variation from person to person, especially YLs and younger OPs.

--
Bill, W6WRT

Well Bill that's not good enough. Too ambiguous. sorry. This is what
the petition was going to clear up, but that's tough to do, perhaps
that's why the FCC has not acted. Nice try and I know what you're
saying but it's just not specific enugh, too much room for argument as
you have witnessed numerous times on the air.

As I see it the only practical way for the FCC to regulate bandwidth is
at the MFG level. Requiring MFGs of radios to be more strict in
controlling the bandwidth, key clicks, processor levels, ALC ect ect of
the equipment they design and produce. This would take it into a type
acceptance area like CB radios, I don't think they want to go there yet.

This may also present a problem for homebrewed transmitters.
Dale
--

No it does not. FCC is afraid to commit to a bandwidth law.

Butch KF5DE

Brenda Ann wrote:

Do not the regs state maximum allowable bandwidth?