NU9N News - May, 2003 - SSB eSSB Hi-fi Audio Operations Under Attack!

Things are heating up with SSB Hi-fi audio operations and experimentation. As you may know, I and four others, were sent certified letters of "Advisory Notice" regarding our Extended SSB (eSSB) operations. This was a notice reminding us to review the rules and make wise decisions on when and where to operate with eSSB.

This was not a citation or a request to stop any of our activities, nor was it alleging that any of us have been operating illegally. I believe this letter was Riley's attempt to ease some pressure off himself that was put on him by a few complaining operators who despise any kind of audio experimentation, despite the legality and legitimacy of such operations.

Amateur Radio has seen this kind of rebuke and friction in the past whenever something new or exciting is tried that is not conducive with traditional means of communications, especially when their way of thinking about things is challenged. It seems that operating against the grain of traditional operating makes some folks insecure, since traditions are often hard to give up because they do give some sense of stability. It's a good thing that the brilliant men of the past century we not treated this way (or maybe they were) or we would still be living in the dark!

The interesting thing about those who received the letter is that one of the recipients, Paul - W9AC, has not been on the air for 7 months due to his wire antenna blowing down during a fall storm last year. The other two recipients, Bill - W2ONV and Anthony - W4NSG are no wider than 3.8kHz !! However, the FCC finally did send Anthony - W4NSG, a letter of apology stating that the commission was sorry for any inconvenience they may have caused him.

This whole deal is the result of some complaints that have been filed against us by operators who feel that 6kHz is excessive and rude operating practice. In other words, in the entire 20 meter band, an extra 3kHz of bandwidth was being used up. Gee, you would think that Riley and the complainers could have spent their time and energy cleaning up a few operators using 1500 watts and heavy RF compression working DX who are occupying 6kHz of bandwidth or more via their splatter and I.M.D. products probably reclaiming 30kHz or more of precious 20m bandwidth! What's interesting about the complainers, and I have a good idea who they are, is that all of these individuals are in real violation of the minimum power rule that results in their signal being in some cases 15kHz or more wide via their I.M.D. products and splatter!

I.M.D. is an unwanted artifact with SSB and eSSB audio experimentation simply because it does not sound good... And sounding good is what we are trying to do in the first place. None of us want distortion on our hard earned Hi-fi audio signatures, and try harder than anyone to keep the signals as clean as possible, beyond any rules or regulations! We do this by conviction and desire for purity, not just out of compliance. I believe that we have gone far beyond mere compliance regarding any legal spectral purity issues, and will continue to strive for excellence in all of our Hi-fi pursuits.

However, I will no longer operate on 14.178, simply because this frequency has become a focal point for too much controversy for me. What I have tried to do has been misunderstood by many, and now, in light of the infamous letter sent by Riley, I will be operating anywhere there is a clear opening that will support Hi-Fi 4k, 5k, or 6k operations, or just simply turn off my radio. I have grown weary of the immature and childlike behavior of the anti-audio experimentation whiners that's been associated with 14.178 and close neighboring frequencies. Look for me very low on 20m at 14.155 +/- 3kHz.

Riley uses FCC Part 97.307(a) To Make His Arguments...
(But It Doesn't Hold Consistent With His Own Views)

FCC Part 97.307a which states: "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." is being used by Riley Holingsworth to state his views. Interestingly, Riley gives his full blessing to Amateur AM operations and its respective bandwidth ranging anywhere from 6kHz to 20kHz depending on the equipment being used. Some of the old AM broadcast gear and older Johnson rigs producing 14~20kHz of RF bandwidth are commonly employed in Amateur Radio AM transmissions. Personally, I think it's great and fully support the wide AM transmissions for it's beautiful "Broadcast Sounding" audio. Apparently, Riley approves as well! And that's fine with me.

However, if 97.307(a) applies to AM, and it does, and it is fully accepted and blessed by Riley Hollingsworth, and it is, then what is the issue with 6kHz (or less) SSB bandwidths as relevant to FCC Part 97.307a which Riley uses as a whipping board against eSSB transmissions? If 14kHz Hi-fi AM is in compliance with Part 97.307(a), then so is 6kHz SSB Hi-fi !!! Both modes fall under the same ruling because Part 97.307(a) is NOT mode specific. If it's applied to one mode and not another, then there is a double standard here! I would suggest that Riley and VEC's recognize this, if they are using Part 97.307(a) in their arguments. I hate to bring AM into the equasion here, and again I have nothing against current AM operations as I fully support their efforts.

I only bring up the FCC Part 97.307(a) issue to demonstrate Riley's inconsistency with the two modes. If "AM is what it is" and can be 12kHz wide in its RF spectrum, and is fully supported by Riley Holingsworth under Part 97.307(a) considered as "good engineering practice", then SSB is what it is (with the same standards applied) with suppressed carrier and opposite sideband at 6kHz RF bandwidth !

The last thing I want to see is any ruling restricting AM bandwidths... "AM is what it is" says Riley, but keep in mind that AM can be manipulated using different bandwidths as narrow as 4kHz just as SSB can be as narrow as 2kHz to achieve the same audio bandwidth. If Riley wants to be a help and not a hinderance, he should stop using FCC Part 97.307(a) in his arguments or start applying it to AM as well, which I for one do not want to see nor do the AM community for obvious reasons. I don't want to see AM operations suffer because of a few bandwidth complaints, no more than I want to see eSSB operations suffer due to a few complaints. But if current AM practice is acceptable under 97.307(a), then eSSB must be as well !

A Closing Message to 3 Groups:

To those who have and are supporting and contributing to eSSB, I thank you! We have grown together in this research and have had enjoyed the fruits of our labor. It's been exciting for me, and very rewarding knowing we have done EVERYTHING possible in producing the finest Single Sideband Suppressed Carrier emission technically possible. Again, thank you for all who support this passion. May you find the sound you are looking for.

To those who do not find this part of the hobby attractive and who totally disagree with the operations and experimental aspect SSB Hi-fi, I understand. Most of you have been very cordial and considerate regarding your objections and I thank you for that. You have that preference of course and I would never push it on anyone who does not want to pursue it. Those of you who have disagreed with my philosophies in a courteous manner carry more weight with me than you know. I am always willing to work out a solution with you if I am truly interfering with a QSO you may be having near my frequency. May you find a part of the hobby that interests you and one that you can enjoy and share with others.

To those who have aggressively and illegally heckled, jammed, interfered and carried on like a bunch of 6 year olds, showing your ignorance about the real issues and about audio experimentation itself, please take your CB terrorist tactics somewhere else and find something more productive to do and stop wasting my time and the time of others who have better things to do than to get involved with idiotic disputes that do not solve anything, but rather stir up discontentment and give Amateur Radio a bad name. If I establish a frequency that is clear in my selected TX bandwidth, and then you choose that you want to deliberately operate just above me within that passband, you are not only interfering with me, (which is a clear rule violation) but you will be subjecting yourself to interference also! Please and simply turn your VFO knob clear of my TX passband... It's that easy! And it doesn't even hurt... It will save us all a lot of unnecessary grief!

NU9N SSB Audio News Editorial - May, 2003