wrote

90% of all Canadians live within 75 miles of the USA, a
distance trivial to HF propagation.

Within 75 miles of the border, maybe. But not within 75
miles of most US hams.

????????? I don't live within 75 miles of most US hams either, but I have
evidence that thousands of them hear my signal. 2-way HF contacts between VE
and W hams also are commonplace, so it seems that problems in the Canadian
regulations would be very visible here.

But they do have arbitrary bandwidth limits.

Yup, a single bandwidth applied to the whole band. Not sliced and diced and
micromanaged into all manner of itty-bitty pockets, yet allowing one privileged
mode free access to all those so-called protected segments. You can't really
pretend with a straight face that this hodge-podge makes sense!

Since, as you point out, their bands are virtually the same
ones we use right next door, certainly we'd know about
any problems with their style of regulation.

They have far fewer hams than the USA, spread out over a larger area.

You said that before, and I've disproven the "spread out over a larger area"
myth. Canadian hams are quite geographically concentrated, regardless of the
size of their wonderful contry. Most Canadians live in a 75-mile (give or take)
corridor along the US border, and are further concentrated into a few
metropolitan "clumps" along that strip.

What works in the country (low-density-of-hams places)
won't necessarily work in the city (high-density-of-hams places).


Most of the rest of the developed world places far more
restrictions on the ownership of firearms than the USA.
And they have far less violent crime, too. Since that
seems to work for them, would you propose the USA
adopt such restrictions?

My proposal is to remove restrictions, not add them! You're the fella
propounding that restrictions are a good deal.

I propose that along with freedom (from arbitrary restrictions) comes the
responsibility to act responsibly, and I submit that generally US hams have
demonstrated that sort of responsibility.

Morse (a "narrow" mode) is allowed on all MF/HF frequencies
except the 60M channels. Have you seen any problems caused by that?

Nope - because Morse operators, in general, voluntarily stay
out of the 'phone/image subbands.

Ah, yes, I see. The hams have VOLUNTARILY sorted out where to transmit. In
other words, a regulation wasn't needed. What a concept!

You mean it was formally submitted as a restructuring proposal
in the past year or two?

It was formally submitted (3 times) in response to other related matters.

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote in message
oups.com...


KØHB wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote

And human nature being what it is, there needs to be
some type of discipline on the bands as to what goes where.

Sounds like an excerpt from a religious catechism!

Is "human nature" different in the USA? For that matter, is "human
nature"
different between 1.8 and 2.0 MHz, where US hams themselves provide the
"type of
discipline" to sort things out without FCC micromanaging it?

The FCC dumped micromanaging 160 on the ARRL, less work and flak for
the FCC.

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv


The illegal and unethical relationship between FCC & ARRL is
one point of several which will enable K1MAN to prevail over
the FCC.

wrote in message
oups.com...

KØHB wrote:
wrote

97.3 Here are your authorized frequency bands. (list)
Stay inside of them.

97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and
communicate and do public service and talk to strangers
in far away lands and launch communications satellites
into space and any other cool technical "radio stuff"
you may think up. The government doesn't
care what mode you use for any of this. (See 97.3)

. . . wall-to-wall Pactor and spread-spectrum and
it all goes downhill fast from there . . .

If that's true, I think it already would have happened.

Pactor is already in the HF bands, it's a royal pain in the tush and
the FCC will probably bring it's use under control based on all the
griping about it.

Considering the rapid pace of development work in the field of
high-speed wireless comms I expect it'll become technically much easier
as time goes on to get some form or another of wireless broadband
hardware running in the HF ham bands. Which would immediately raise
more hell on the bands than anything we've seen in the modern era.
Which it hasn't and it won't because those modes are not allowed to
happen under the current regs. So I disagree with your "unregulated
equal opportunity mode playground" concept.

The US is one of only a
very few countries which has mandated "mode sub-bands".

No counter, we've been very pointedly marching to our own drummer since
1776 and I sure hope we never become international sheep.

We have a whole pile of sweeping "restructuring" schemes before the FCC
and everybody is all atwitter over the minutia and their parochial hot
buttons, etc. The usual. Lotta nonsense, I have yet to read one of 'em
which if implemented wouldn't make conditions on the bands *worse* in
some way or another than what we have now. The bands ain't broken, why
are we so hell-bent on "fixing" something which ain't broke??

Bleh.

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv



Just because *you* cannot comprehend why, does not make
it a bad idea. Your tunnel vision is hilarious.

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote


Nope - because Morse operators, in general, voluntarily stay
out of the 'phone/image subbands.

Ah, yes, I see. The hams have VOLUNTARILY sorted out where to transmit. =
In
other words, a regulation wasn't needed. What a concept!

But would U.S. phone ops VOLUNTARILY stay up the bands and out of the
segments historically inhabited by the CW and digital users if they
were not restrained from doing so?

Not in our lifetimes. =20

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

Ginger Raveir wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


K=D8HB wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote

And human nature being what it is, there needs to be
some type of discipline on the bands as to what goes where.

Sounds like an excerpt from a religious catechism!

Is "human nature" different in the USA? For that matter, is "human
nature"
different between 1.8 and 2.0 MHz, where US hams themselves provide the
"type of
discipline" to sort things out without FCC micromanaging it?

The FCC dumped micromanaging 160 on the ARRL, less work and flak for
the FCC.

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv


The illegal and unethical relationship between FCC & ARRL is
one point of several which will enable K1MAN to prevail over
the FCC.

Dearie I have yet to run into a Real Ham who could possibly give a
rat's ass about the goofy flap over K1MAN. That "thread" is for you
bottom echelon types to obsess upon. Enjoy but kindly if you please
don't bore the rest of us with it.

w3rv

K=D8HB wrote:

Is "human nature" different in the USA?

Probably not - but "culture" sure is!

For that matter, is "human nature"
different between 1.8 and 2.0 MHz, where US hams themselves
provide the "type of
discipline" to sort things out without FCC micromanaging it?

There have already been problems on 160 because some folks won't follow
the voluntary bandplan. Already been a proposal to FCC that would
impose subbands-by-mode on 160.

73 de Jim, N2EY

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

90% of all Canadians live within 75 miles of the USA, a
distance trivial to HF propagation.

Within 75 miles of the border, maybe. But not within 75
miles of most US hams.

????????? I don't live within 75 miles of most US hams either, but I h=
ave
evidence that thousands of them hear my signal.

Sure.

But most of us don't have antennas or amplifiers like yours, Hans.

2-way HF contacts between VE
and W hams also are commonplace, so it seems that problems in
the Canadian
regulations would be very visible here.

Only if there were enough of them to have such problems. The Canadian
amateur population (thanks, Leo) is less than 10% of the US amateur
population.

But they do have arbitrary bandwidth limits.

Yup, a single bandwidth applied to the whole band. Not sliced
and diced and
micromanaged into all manner of itty-bitty pockets, yet allowing one pr=
ivileged
mode free access to all those so-called protected segments. You can't =
really
pretend with a straight face that this hodge-podge makes sense!

It makes more sense than a free-for-all.

Since, as you point out, their bands are virtually the same
ones we use right next door, certainly we'd know about
any problems with their style of regulation.

They have far fewer hams than the USA, spread out over a
larger area.

You said that before, and I've disproven the "spread out over a larger =
area"
myth. Canadian hams are quite geographically concentrated,
regardless of the
size of their wonderful contry. Most Canadians live in a 75-
mile (give or take)
corridor along the US border, and are further concentrated into a few
metropolitan "clumps" along that strip.

Most US hams live on or near the coasts, too.

What works in the country (low-density-of-hams places)
won't necessarily work in the city (high-density-of-hams
places).

Most of the rest of the developed world places far more
restrictions on the ownership of firearms than the USA.
And they have far less violent crime, too. Since that
seems to work for them, would you propose the USA
adopt such restrictions?

My proposal is to remove restrictions, not add them! You're the fella =
propounding that restrictions are a good deal.

I'm saying that because something works in another country doesn't mean
it will work here. Perhaps we should adopt Canada's health care system
too? That would end the busloads of people going north on trips to buy
their medicines at reasonable prices.

I propose that along with freedom (from arbitrary restrictions)
comes the
responsibility to act responsibly, and I submit that generally
US hams have demonstrated that sort of responsibility.

I submit that we don't fix what ain't broke.

Morse (a "narrow" mode) is allowed on all MF/HF frequencies
except the 60M channels. Have you seen any problems caused by that?

Nope - because Morse operators, in general, voluntarily stay
out of the 'phone/image subbands.

Ah, yes, I see. The hams have VOLUNTARILY sorted out where to
transmit. In
other words, a regulation wasn't needed. What a concept!

The hams who use Morse, that is. Have you noticed that almost all
on-air-behavior-related FCC enforcement actions are for alleged
violations using *voice* modes?

You mean it was formally submitted as a restructuring proposal
in the past year or two?

It was formally submitted (3 times) in response to other related matter=
s=2E

So it wasn't submitted as a restructuring proposal, but as comments to
other proposals.

Too bad. I'd like to see what the general reaction would be to such a
proposal, even if I don't agree with it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote

Already been a proposal to FCC that would
impose subbands-by-mode on 160.

And, to their credit, the Commission declined to act on that frivolous proposal
stating that we could work it out among ourselves. Seems we've done just that,
and the 160M band is working just fine, letting dynamic market forces determine
usage patterns.

Sunuvagun!

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote


Ah, yes, I see. The hams have VOLUNTARILY sorted out
where to transmit. In other words, a regulation wasn't needed.
What a concept!

The hams who use Morse, that is. Have you noticed that
almost all on-air-behavior-related FCC enforcement actions
are for alleged violations using *voice* modes?

If we regulate by that principle, then we should extend the same "just stay
inside the band" freedom to every mode with a low number of alleged violations.
I take it you'd be in favor of that? If not, why not?

So it wasn't submitted as a restructuring proposal, but as
comments to other proposals.

That's correct. It was formally submitted to FCC on three occassions when the
Commission solicited comments.

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote

But most of us don't have antennas or amplifiers like yours, Hans.

There's nothing uncommon about my stations.


It makes more sense than a free-for-all.

"Free-for-all" is an emotionally charged term, calculated to engender visions of
a street brawl. Most of the worlds hams outside the US already enjoy the
freedom to use the bands without government-mandated "segment by mode", and I
notice no such brawls taking place. By and large, hams seem to be a cooperative
and responsible population with a good record of self-regulation.

I thought the proposal authors stated that concept quite accurately:

"We believe the ideal band plan is one where good judgment on the operator's
part supports use of any mode and any frequency available within their license
class. Good judgment is centered on cooperative, flexible use of frequencies,
with a specific goal of avoiding and/or resolving interference to others at a
direct and low level, avoiding escalation and any need for outside enforcement.
Guided by the use of good judgment, removal of artificial boundaries would
encourage dynamic selection of frequency, affording an operator the best chance
to minimize compatibility issues with other modes and activities. This would
lead to greater band "loading" and improved utilization by allowing an operator
to choose a clear spot on the dial across a greater frequency range.

"Intentional interference with communications is a violation of the regulations,
independent of the mode in use, and whether automatic, semi automatic, or
manually keyed. Sanctions would continue to be available against deliberate
interference or problems involving technical signal purity, using volunteer
"official observer" type programs. If a documented problem remains chronic or
unresolved, the intervention of federal authority would reinforce volunteer OO
in self-regulation efforts, as it does today.

"Automatic or semi automatic data operation not copied by the human ear becomes
of particular concern under our proposal, since the activity would be
unencumbered by subband. This group of users would have a specific challenge to
maintain the good judgment pre-requisite by making certain their
telemetry-polling systems recognize the presence of other modes and activities
and avoiding interference to other communications. Chronically failing to do so
would remain an actionable violation under existing rules against deliberate
interference, since it could be shown such judgment had not been exercised.

"We contend that the goal of voluntary selection of operating frequencies for
improved spectrum use is best achieved through real-time assessment of variables
in propagation and radio traffic load. Efforts to improve spectrum use are
currently constrained because these variables cannot be accommodated with
fulltime, rigidly defined sub-bands.

"Additionally, contemporary technology offers interference protection at the
receiver to an extent not possible 60 years ago, when protection was implemented
by regulatory mandate to divide "phone" and "code" activity. Technology and
patterns of use now encourage the more effective coordination that we propose."