[BC] FCC Approves proposed AM MoM Rules

[Mike McCarthy]

The MoM proposal does NOT address any of the issues surrounding pattern 
bandwidth and match symmetry.  Only the pattern at carrier.

That said, the process does lend itself to broadbanding and improving match 
symmetry.  Pattern symmetry sometimes follows, but not as tightly or 
precisely as the on-channel performance.  There are cases where it might be 
worse too.

MM

At 08:11 AM 9/25/2008 -0700, Barry Mishkind wrote
>This is something that has been "brewing" for twenty years. Given the ever 
>increasing costs - and urban hassles - of doing a traditional proof vs the 
>computer accuracy available these days, this seems to be a move forward, 
>technologically.
>
>Question for those really familiar with the new Rules: Does this expand, 
>in any way, the bandwidth over which the pattern must be held?  (In other 
>words, does it do anything about the radiation other than at carrier?)
>
>At 08:07 AM 9/25/2008, Peter Moncure, wrote
>>Method of Moments, as in Livermore Labs software called "NEC", or its 
>>clones like MiniNec, NEC4 and so on.
>>
>>And yes, FCC approved this (the Part 73 regs anyhow) last night.  The 
>>Part 17 regs, which may be moved to Part 1, are to be a NPRM.  That will 
>>determine who has to detune new towers.  I wouldn't be surprised if this 
>>gets bogged down with the migratory bird drama, though with cats and 
>>skyscrapers I can't see how our corner of the problem is worth fussing about.