If one wants to devolve into international law (treaty), ITU defines "commercial quality" telephony as 300 - 3000 Hz and defines "Sound Broadcasting" as "between 4,000 and 10,000 (Hz) depending on the quality desired". See: http://life.itu.ch/radioclub/rr/ap01.htm. The USA includes that definition/table in 47CFR §2.201 and §2.202.
Thus references to the "necessary bandwidth" for voice (phone) in part 97 (47CFR Part 97) should be read as 2K70J3A for SSB (including "ESSB") and 6K0A3A for AM - including the limitations in §97.307(a) and §97.307(b). 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 4/28/2014 12:26 AM, David Cole wrote:
Milverton, Respectfully, your reply does not answer the question-- is there really a need for ESSB? Your answer merely introduces a totally different argument into this discussion, (the legal argument), while using my question as a launching point for a subject change. I am not asking about if it is legal, I am asking why do it at all? Is this really to use an ESSB supporters own words, "...other hams having fun..."? The legal issue will sort itself out. If ESSB does not have it's own emission definition, (one accepted by the FCC), and is classed with SSB, then it is not legal. This conclusion on my part is based on Part 97.307(a), again, this assumes that ESSB and SSB have the same emission designation as per the FCC.
______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [email protected]
