Elecraft

K3 - ESSB Availability

Classic

List

Threaded

5 messages Options

Bill W4ZV

K3 - ESSB Availability

Every time I see the term ESSB I see red. I wonder if these folks
have ever read FCC Part 97.307 (a) 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.

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/

Instead of playing wannabe broadcast engineer, why don't these folks
try something really creative, like trying to see how *little*
bandwidth they can use to communicate, instead of how much bandwidth
they can consume?

Icom has a lot of faults (like very misleading advertising) but I do
commend them for limiting the bandwidth of their voice modes.
End of rant.

73, Bill W4ZV

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

P.B. Christensen

Re: K3 - ESSB Availability

> Every time I see the term ESSB I see red. I wonder if these folks have
> ever read FCC Part 97.307 (a) 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.

Bill,

The problem with Section 97.307(a) lies in its drafting and purpose. The
plain-language meaning of this section infers that as long as the
transmission occupies no more bandwidth than that necessary for the emission
type we are trying to achieve, then we are complaint with the rule, subject
to "good amateur practice."

For example, suppose my intent is to use ITU designator 3K00J3E (i.e., 3 kHz
SSB bandwidth). My intent is to use 3 kHz of occupied bandwidth and
clearly, the ITU designator sets the "emission type" as stated in the
aforementioned rule. Taking this one step further, if my desired occupied
bandwidth is 3 kHz under the ITU 3K00J3E designator, then as long as I
remain within that boundary I have set for the "emission type being
transmitted," I am fully-complaint with the rule (see my bandwidth boundary
caveat at the end).

In fact, suppose I wish to transmit with 6 kHz of SSB bandwidth and my
desired emission type is 6K00J3E under the ITU designator. Pursuant to the
rules, that transmission can be fully-complaint as well. However, this also
presumes that any such transmission -- no matter what the actual
bandwidth -- does not cause interference to existing transmissions. Whether
the actual transmitted bandwidth is 1.8 kHz of 6 kHz, there's always a
propensity to cause some interference to existing transmissions.

Moreover, terms like "good amateur practice" and "information rate" should
never be codified into rules & regulations unless these terms are
incorporated by reference into definitions in the preamble of the rules.
Only, the original framers of Sec. 97.307(a) likely wanted to keep this
section open for experimentation purposes without the necessity of placing
hard bandwidth restrictions on emissions that could otherwise thwart the
benefits of experimenting with various modes that exist today -- and those
modes that may become developed at some point in the future. Enforcement of
97.307(a) would never, and could never, stand up to Constitutional scrutiny
on the basis of the rule's arbitrary, capricious, and vague drafting.

Another problem that surfaces when we establish hard occupied bandwidth
rules is the necessity to monitor the bandwidth of emissions (to ensure 100%
compliance) and the lack of a reasonable means for the average licensee to
measure such. Also, codified bandwidth regulations would require setting
measurement limits at the spectrum edges. For example, at what point is a
3K00J3E no longer compliant? Perhaps at -26 dB Peak Power? - 50 dB Peak
Power? It gets real messy, real fast.

Paul, W9AC

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

N4LQ-2

Re: K3 - ESSB Availability

In reply to this post by Bill W4ZV

Oh here we go again....Stop trolling for flames guys. Now we will start this
same old argument again. If one is so concerned about how much bandwidth
they use then switch to QRP CW and forget about SSB.
Steve Ellington
[hidden email]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Tippett" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:24 AM
Subject: [Elecraft] K3 - ESSB Availability

> Every time I see the term ESSB I see red. I wonder if these folks
> have ever read FCC Part 97.307 (a) 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.
>
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/
>
> Instead of playing wannabe broadcast engineer, why don't these folks
> try something really creative, like trying to see how *little*
> bandwidth they can use to communicate, instead of how much bandwidth
> they can consume?
>
> Icom has a lot of faults (like very misleading advertising) but I do
> commend them for limiting the bandwidth of their voice modes.
> End of rant.
>
> 73, Bill W4ZV
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.3/1472 - Release Date: 5/29/2008
7:27 AM

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy

Re: K3 - ESSB Availability

In reply to this post by Bill W4ZV

Hello Bill,

Well said Sir :-)

73,
Geoff
GM4ESD

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: K3 - ESSB Availability [End of Thread]

Administrator

In reply to this post by P.B. Christensen

Guys, lets nip this thread before it roars to life again. ;-)

A quick search of the archives will bring all of the past pro/con ESSB
discussions to light in excruciating detail.

73, Eric WA6HHQ Elecraft list moderator
----

Paul Christensen wrote:

>> Every time I see the term ESSB I see red. I wonder if these folks
>> have ever read FCC Part 97.307 (a) 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.
>
> Bill,
>
> The problem with Section 97.307(a) lies in its drafting and purpose.
> The plain-language meaning of this section infers that as long as the
> transmission occupies no more bandwidth than that necessary for the
> emission type we are trying to achieve, then we are complaint with the
> rule, subject to "good amateur practice."
>