Well ham gear and amplifiers are already Type Accepted by the FCC. Do you think adding a simple dynamic IMD test is going to be the end of the world for ham radio? I think not.
All that IMD type acceptance will do for ham radios under the current test regime is this.
1. Eliminate most of the garbage CB amplifiers from being passed off as "clean" ham amplifiers. It will never stop a idiot ham from using one.
2. It will eliminate radios with poor ALC designs that cause splatter. Many of Yaesus current radio have a poor ALC design that causes excessive splatter. It will stop radios that have the infamous power over shoot issue
from being sold onto the market.
3. It will force manufacturers to adjust their bias systems for better high order IMD suppression and design PA's with better IMD performance.
So the outcomes will be all good. Most ham transceivers could PASS ITU or FCC marine type acceptance regulations. Its only the really bad amplifiers and radios that will fail. Who really wants to own crap equipment anyway?
Look at the marine HF market. Icom has for years had equipment that passed the old FCC Type acceptance for IMD. Lately its newer marine radios pass the ITU standards and these radios sell for less than most ham transceivers at
the moment. All this equipment operates on 12 volts. So the arguments of increased costs because of this testing is not valid argument since only 1 radio has to be sent for testing, not every radio produced. All this type acceptance testing is done by automated test systems with quick pass fail masks. The only costs is getting the ham radio design engineers off poor design practices and do some real engineering. We see the same poor transmitters and ALC designs year after year. They not trying very hard.
As for IMD not being a issue, well it depends where and what style of operating you doing. Its a problem in Europe on any band. Its a problem in the DX window on 75 meters. Its really a problem on all bands. Many hams dont really know what a "clean" transceiver and what acceptable minimum typical IMD standards should be. I hear many hams refer to splatter as a station moving in alongside them and into their nominal receiver passband. This is not splatter. I hear hams constantly saying "you sound clean here, no splatter" without tuning down 5, 10 or 15 khz. So its a complex issue that most hams cant be bothered becoming experts at. To these hams if they buy a radio and it costs a lot of money and even if it does splatter, its OK to them because they spent a lot of money on it. Its hard telling hams that just because they spent 8000 dollars on a radio, it does not mean its perfect and even splatter free. Every current radio can be made to splatter because of the very poor ALC designs in them. A Type accepted radio will never have a poor ALC design or one that uses ALC as a form of compression So type acceptance in the long run will be good
for all hams. We just need people like the ARRL to raise the issue. However I doubt the ARRL will ever review a transceiver and say that its transmitter has poor TX IMD and a poor ALC design. They have turned a blind eye to this problem for decades now and casually mention poor TX IMD in reviews as normal. Then on the other hands they harp all day about receiver numbers, it seems the receiver number stupidity flu has infected the league as well.
And a final a point is that most transceivers have receiver IMD dynamic range numbers that are far higher than can be ever used. Its typically 80 Db higher than the equivalent transmit IMD number at the same frequency spacing.
How is it possible that so many brag about all this receiver performance when the laws of physics state that its an impossible reality. Hams buying a 10,000 dollar radio and then using a poor IMD amplifier that ruins the best radios
dynamic range potential is the height of stupidity at its best. Its for this reason alone that those who defend the use of CB and ham garbage amplifiers just dont get it, they really dont. We wasting money pursuing design objectives whose end result is not any better than using the worst receiver from 30 years ago. That is the brutal impact of poor TX IMD. If half of this effort that was put into designing receivers with ridiculously high receiver numbers was put into
transmitter design we would not be talking about this issue. Its all about restoring a harmonious balance between transmitter and receiver performance. Its a disaster when they are so many radios that are priced over 6000 dollars on the market and yet they no better than a 20 dollar CB radio in the transmitter performance. Why there is outcry is beyond belief, all it saying to the manufacturers is that we all a big bunch of dumb suckers!
Be careful what you wish for, Zenki. I don't think many of us would vote for full type acceptance of all ham gear. You really want to put manufacturing for our niche market into that deep freeze?
I listen to a lot of bands and activity. I simply don't perceive a major problem with splatter or other spurious stuff. Yes, one guy with a dirty amp, mis-tuned, and with the processor set on "100" is a major problem to you if you are trying to rag chew with somebody down 2. But is that any reason to ask that your friendly central government step in and slap arbitrary regulation on us when none is really needed?
I still maintain that the marketplace will help control the quality and performance of our gear. If the Italian amp is OK, it should be a viable option. If it is dirty, I'd bet enough eHam "zero" ratings and on-air admonishment and OO reports...and maybe even a note from the FCC if they still do that sort of thing...would keep it from being a viable choice, at any price.