On Mar 17, 7:31�pm, wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:44 pm, Phil Kane wrote:



That's "Regulation-By-Abstention", Hans, which is no regulation at all
and is extremely poor policy.

I understand your view, Phil, especially coming from your long
background in a regulatory environment.

But I think one of the failures of the FCC stewardship of Amateur
Radio has been over-regulation.

Pause here, and refresh your mindset on the difference between
"regulation" and "enforcement".

One of the bedrock 'values' of the Amateur Radio Service is
experimentation and "advancement of the radio art", yet FCC has
historically dragged its feet in allowing us the leeway to try
unorthodox modulation schemes, new transmission modes, etc. *(As an
example, Canadian amateurs had AX.25 up and running for almost a
decade before FCC would allow W/K guys to play in that mode.)

Paraphrasing Thomas Paine, "That government is best which governs
least." I believe "that agency regulates best which regulates
least."

Give us a sandbox to play in, make sure we don't trash the surrounding
neighborhood, and let us play our game. *Use enforcement, not over
regulation, to make sure the public interest is served.

In this case, however, you have a very finite resource (the
electromagnetic spectrum) and a multitude of users with varying needs
for it's use. In most cases, mixed-mode operqations don't work...Or
at the very least don't work well.

The proposed bandwidth subdivisions will be a disaster if they
ever come to fruition.

73

Steve, K4YZ

On Mar 18, 2:10 am, wrote:


In this case, however, you have a very finite resource (the
electromagnetic spectrum) and a multitude of users with varying needs
for it's use. In most cases, mixed-mode operqations don't work...Or
at the very least don't work well.


Thank you, Steve. Your point is very real, and the historic
'solution' has been for the government (FCC) to impose regulatory
handcuffs on the market-based arbitration of that tension. This has
the practical effect of total regulatory favor of the legacy use over
the exploration of new ideas.

New ideas not only have to overcome regulatory hindrance to
feasibility trial (STA's, etc.) but once on the air must fit into a
regulatory mishmash of allocation buckets already dominated by old
legacy uses. This is the ultimate irony in the only radio service
chartered to "advance the state of the radio art".

73, de Hans, K0HB

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:31:34 CST, wrote:

One of the bedrock 'values' of the Amateur Radio Service is
experimentation and "advancement of the radio art", yet FCC has
historically dragged its feet in allowing us the leeway to try
unorthodox modulation schemes, new transmission modes, etc. (As an
example, Canadian amateurs had AX.25 up and running for almost a
decade before FCC would allow W/K guys to play in that mode.)

Interesting example because in some aspects the US is more liberal
than a lot of other countries with regard to the amateur service.

The only modulation scheme that I had any contact with the "delaying
factor" was spread spectrum. The powers-that-were were very reluctant
to permit this in the amateur service because of the history of spread
spectrum - as you well know it was developed for the military to
frustrate transmitter location and interception of traffic, two "gotta
haves" in FCC amateur radio enforcement (whether they are used or not
is a different story). When the equipment to do so was finally
acquired and put into service, the mode was released for general use.
That's real life in the trenches....
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Mar 14, 1:47�am, wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:01 am, Michael Coslo wrote:

What is the process of modifying the gentlemen's agreements?
Specifically, I would like to explore the idea of adding a new PSK31
segment or two.

Were it up to me the FCC would get out of the business of regulation-
by-mode and simplify 97.305 would be simplified to read: "Here are
your band segments by license class. *Stay inside them and play nice
with each other."

This doesnt' work with other radio services very well. Why would
it be appropriate for Amateur Radio?

Steve, K4YZ

wrote:
On Mar 14, 1:47�am, wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:01 am, Michael Coslo wrote:

What is the process of modifying the gentlemen's agreements?
Specifically, I would like to explore the idea of adding a new PSK31
segment or two.

Were it up to me the FCC would get out of the business of regulation-
by-mode and simplify 97.305 would be simplified to read: "Here are
your band segments by license class. Stay inside them and play nice
with each other."

This doesnt' work with other radio services very well. Why would
it be appropriate for Amateur Radio?

Because amateur radio is supposed to be self regulating.

Perhaps my impression is wrong, in which case I hope that someone will
correct me, but don't most countries treat the regulation of amateur
radio more like "here are your allocations"?

I would like to think that there are enough gentlemen in ham radio that
gentlemen's agreements and voluntary bandplans would be sufficient.
Based on what I hear on the air, that's a rather silly hope.
Nonetheless, it reflects badly on our hobby that an agency needs to
stand by with a big stick to make us do what we should be able to do on
our own.

73, Steve KB9X

"Steve Bonine" wrote ...
Perhaps my impression is wrong, in which case I hope that someone will
correct me, but don't most countries treat the regulation of amateur
radio more like "here are your allocations"?

I would like to think that there are enough gentlemen in ham radio
that gentlemen's agreements and voluntary bandplans would be
sufficient. Based on what I hear on the air, that's a rather silly
hope. Nonetheless, it reflects badly on our hobby that an agency needs
to stand by with a big stick to make us do what we should be able to
do on our own.

OTOH, Why should we be surprised if Amateur Radio
appears to reflect the declining conduct of society in general?
It would be nice if we were better behaved, but perhaps that
is too high an expectation.

Richard Crowley KE7GKP

Richard Crowley wrote:
OTOH, Why should we be surprised if Amateur Radio
appears to reflect the declining conduct of society in general?

Not to mention the declining technical interest
and mathematical expertise.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mar 18, 9:22�am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Steve Bonine" *wrote ...

Perhaps my impression is wrong, in which case I hope that someone will
correct me, but don't most countries treat the regulation of amateur
radio more like "here are your allocations"?

I would like to think that there are enough gentlemen in ham radio
that gentlemen's agreements and voluntary bandplans would be
sufficient. Based on what I hear on the air, that's a rather silly
hope. Nonetheless, it reflects badly on our hobby that an agency needs
to stand by with a big stick to make us do what we should be able to
do on our own.

OTOH, Why should *we be surprised if Amateur Radio
appears to reflect the declining conduct of society in general?
It *would be nice if we were better behaved, but perhaps that
is too high an expectation.

Richard Crowley KE7GKP

I can't agree with the "general societal decline" opinion.
That's been a general remark all through seven decades
of my life by each successive generation...who have all
generally flourished despite all their dire predictions.

What has been happening, to amateur radio as well as
to "general society" is CHANGE. Changes upset our
cozy concepts, those of the liked and familiar, with
strange new things, unfamiliar and untried. Changes
WILL happen and succeeding generations will consider
them as "old hat" in their day yet to come. :-)

I have to agree with Hans Brakob's "here are your
bands, have a nice day" concept (borrowed from the
late Don Stoner?). In general, that is. Practically,
there must be a middle ground in regulations. I don't
think that governmental micromanagement of mode
allocations per band is the way to go...nor should
there be so many conditional regulations on top of
those when the rest of the radio world is exploring
new things and making them work.

The FCC presently yields a lot of options to amateurs
insofar as mode use goes. If certain "gentlemen" are
inclined to stick with their familiar options at the expense
of other gentlemen, then the gentlemen ought to settle
it themselves. All the FCC can do is enforce their long-
standing "no interference with licensed users" dictum
which I think is a good thing. There's no territorial
imperative to be claimed in amateur radio spectrum
allocations, nobody "owns" certain bandspaces nor
frequencies.

As time goes on, there WILL be changes to amateur
radio bandspace divisions. There WILL be the usual
cry by the established "gentlemen" and the general
harrangues of those "gentlemen" desiring change.
Seeking a middle ground is necessary and the FCC
may have to step in (again) and change the subdivisions.
If it must, then the "gentlemen" on both sides have
failed to agree and the pessimistic view will be realized.

I'm not optimistic that all are "gentlemen" and can
settle things among themselves. I would hope they
would but I've seen a lot of generations of humans
do their thing on many varieties of activities.

73, Len AF6AY

Steve Bonine writes:

wrote:
Perhaps my impression is wrong, in which case I hope that someone will
correct me, but don't most countries treat the regulation of amateur
radio more like "here are your allocations"?

I can't speak for anybody else, but here in Norway this is the
case. There are power limits, of course, and bandwidth limits - 6 kHz
on most of HF, wider for higher frequencies. The IARU bandplans are
respected, so although SSB is legal in below 14.1 MHz, you don't hear
any.

Our regulations are very short - less than 2 1/2 pages when printed
by Firefox. http://www.lovdata.no/ltavd1/lt2004/t2004-1-10-65.html, if
anybody is curious.

73 de LA4RT Jon

"LA4RT Jon Kåre Hellan" wrote in message
...
Steve Bonine writes:

wrote:
Perhaps my impression is wrong, in which case I hope that someone will
correct me, but don't most countries treat the regulation of amateur
radio more like "here are your allocations"?

I can't speak for anybody else, but here in Norway this is the
case. There are power limits, of course, and bandwidth limits - 6 kHz
on most of HF, wider for higher frequencies. The IARU bandplans are
respected, so although SSB is legal in below 14.1 MHz, you don't hear
any.


I've heard quite a few below 14.1 during contests.

Dee, N8UZE