[CW] An AM View of the World

[N2EY@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/5/02 10:16:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
btippett@alum.mit.edu writes:

> Questions that come to my mind follow the quoted comments:
>  
>  "The undesirable results of FCC-mandated emission subbands may be heard 
>  on the other HF bands.  The segments reserved for narrowband emission 
>  modes such as CW telegraphy (Class A1A emission) are often lightly
>  used, particularly in the case of the 3500 kHz band."

They are often heavily used, too. 
>  
>  1.  This reminds me of the SSB group on 1823.  When told that they 
>  were on top of CW DX there, their response was typically "CW DX?
>  I don't hear any DX.  We aren't moving."  It's unlikely most stations
>  can hear weak signal DX, low power beacons, or digital modes unless they 
>  have the technical capability to do so (i.e. Beverages or other receiving
>  antennas, Spectrascan DSP software, etc.)  Of course the 1823 group
>  could hear the S9+++ USA CW stations calling the DX but they chose to
>  ignore them.  In my experience, most domestic wideband communications on 
>  the lower bands are local ragchew nets.  There's nothing wrong with that 
>  but I don't particularly think they should occupy the entire band.

I would not call them "nets", because that term suggests that they are 
similar to traffic or emergency nets. I'd use the term "roundtable". 
>  
>  "It also tends to stifle experimentation.
>  
>  2.  Exactly how much experimentation is done on AM and SSB?  The most
>  I've heard seems to be how far they can stretch Amendment One without 
>  getting warning letters from Hollingsworth.  Check out FCC enforcement 
>  letters below and you'll note most of the violations over the 3 years 
>  of records are using SSB, AM or FM modes.  

In fact, I don't recall ANY NALs or enforcement letters to hams actually 
using CW or digital modes in the CW/digital subbands. That says a lot. 

There was a recent pair of letters sent to two hams, one a General and one a 
Technician, for operating SSB on 14.118 in order to check into a French 
"net". The Technician (not a Tech Plus!) isn;t even licensed to operate on 20 
meters.

>  Most true experimentation is 
>  being done today with weak-signal CW, QRSS CW and the new digital modes 
>  (PSK31, WSJT, QRSS, etc.)
>  
>          http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/
>  
>  "But the segments where wideband modes, such as AM and SSB telephony 
>  (Class A3E and J3E emission, respectively), are permitted are often 
>  horribly crowded."
>  
>  3.  Could this be because those modes are horribly spectrum-inefficient?
>  The lastest rage of some AM'ers is high-fidelity AM which may be in 
>  violation of FCC regulations if it is wider than 6 kHz total bandwidth.
>  They seem to want to emulate Broadcast stations which have spectrum
>  spacing of 10 kHz.  Is using antiquated wideband modes like AM truly 
>  advancing the state-of-the-art?  I don't think so.  

Not having a CW/digital segment will stifle experimentation with digital 
modes.
>  
>  "Subbanding has had the effect of setting up de facto 'American-free' 
>  zones, in which foreign amateur radio stations may use voice and other 
>  wideband modes, but Americans may not.  Because wideband modes prevail 
>  on the frequencies inquestion, American stations refrain from using 
>  narrowband modes there and the foreign stations will not communicate 
>  with Americans using narrowband modes on the frequencies in question."

So? The new band will initially be USA only. It should be set up for USA 
standards.
>  
>  4.  In fact, on the 75 meter band where the phone subband has expanded
>  below 3800 over the past twenty years, most of the 3750-3790 area has 
>  been taken over by domestic nets, which force DX stations below 3750 
>  or into the small 3790-3800 "DX window".  As a matter of fact, most
>  DX operations there use split frequency to avoid their weaker signals 
>  being covered by stronger local USA signals.  If subbands did not
>  exist, I suspect the entire 80M band would be taken over by the same 
>  type of local domestic nets that cover the 75M band today.  
>  
>  "Although the proposed 5250-5400 kHz allocation will be an amateur band 
>  only in the United States, the lack of government-mandated emission 
>  subbands will give users of this band more freedom to move about to avoid
>  interfering with the fixed and mobile stations that will continue to be 
>  the primary users of this band."
>  
>  5.  If this were really true, I wonder why we had the case of the group
>  on 1823 refusing to move for 17 years?  They weren't interfering with 
>  any other service but their own, in violation of their own ARRL and IARU
>  Region 2 voluntary bandplans.  What makes us think they would be better 
>  behaved on 5 MHz?

Nothing.

In addition, the use of narrowband modes will permit greater flexibility to 
avoid interference with primary users. 

A division of 50 kHz CW/digital and 100 kHz 'phone will not hurt anyone.
>  
>  "Currently, the United States is the only country in the world that 
>  imposes government-mandated emission subbands on its radio amateurs."
>  
>  6.  This is simply not true.  I am most familiar with 160 meters but 
>  there are also sub-bands on 10 meters in some countries, and there may 
>  be others as well.  
> 
In addition, no country except Japan has anywhere near the number of 
HF-licensed amateurs as the USA. The situations are simply not comparable.

The Japanese exception does not really apply because the vast majority of 
Japanese hams are 4th class licensees, which allows only QRP power levels and 
limits them to HF bands where amateurs are worldwide primary users.

>          For those who feel we need no government regulation whatsoever, 
>  they need look no further than 27 MHz for an example of the chaos that 
>  would result.  We've "been there and done that" and I don't think we
>  need to repeat that experience on our amateur bands.

AMEN!

73 de Jim, N2EY