[BC] Outside source for checking Modulation Levels

[Cowboy]

On Sunday 20 July 2014 06:28:28 pm robertm wrote:
> I wouldn't lay that all on Eric. 

 He was the primary mover and shaker in causing this confusing "clarification."
 A parsing of words to make the rule say something that it clearly didn't.
 A lawyer's trick largely responsible for the seriously broken legal system
 in this country, depending of course, on what the meaning of "is" is.

> The rule has always stated peaks of frequent occurrence.

 "frequent recurrence," but that should be an irrelevant parsing of words.
 Unfortunately, due that whole mess, it's not only *not* irrelevant, but
 formed the basis of an entire legal dog and pony show as to what's
 legal, and what's not.
 
> The peak was never defined nor was 'frequent'.  

 That's the kind of word parsing that gets us into trouble every time.
 If you don't know what a peak is, then you have no business in
 broadcast engineering, or any radio or TV engineering for that matter,
 as well as mountain climbing, sailing, and a number of other activities
 found it every day life.
 Webster defined both, many years before.

> That said, it can still be measured on a scope.

 Since the rule regarding what actually is over-modulation has not changed,
 this remains true.

> Personally I have always thought that occupied bandwidth measurement better suits the purpose. 

 Since spectrum auctions, and other such ridiculous congressional moves,
 I tend to agree.
 My view, over-modulate all you want, so long as you do not cause harmful
 interference to other users of the spectrum.
 Occupied bandwidth does tend to encompass all that would be required, so long
 as we don't have another Eric Small come along and parse rules about what
 which excursions into the adjacent channel are to be ignored as having never
 happened depending on unknown future recurrence, depending on which
 instrument is used to measure, irrespective of whether or not any harmful
 interference is actually caused.

-- 
Cowboy