K=D8HB wrote:
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 st=
ay
inside the band" freedom to every mode with a low number of alleged viola=
tions.

Only if the mode is as popular as Morse Code is on the HF/MF bands.

I take it you'd be in favor of that? If not, why not?

See above!

Do you include "robot" modes?

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 whe=
n the
Commission solicited comments.

Even though I disagree with almost all of it, I think it would be
better if it were sent to FCC as a formal proposal. Because it would
then get a lot more attention than it would as a comment.

But it's *your* proposal, not mine.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:
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.

Only if the mode is as popular as Morse Code is on the HF/MF bands.

Interesting. In other words, if SSTV or PSK-xx (just a couple of examples ---
pick your own other candidate) became as popular as Morse, then that mode ought
to enjoy the same "full band" freedom that only Morse now enjoys. That seems to
be inconsistent with your previous "modes should be kept separate" stance.
Maybe you're starting to see it my way after all.

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

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

There's nothing uncommon about my stations.

I respectfully submit that most US hams don't have antennas like yours,
Hans. Nor a similar location.

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

"Free-for-all" is an emotionally charged term, calculated to engender vis=
ions of
a street brawl.

Maybe to you.

Most of the worlds hams outside the US already enjoy the
freedom to use the bands without government-mandated "segment by mode", a=
nd I
notice no such brawls taking place.

Doesn't mean they don't happen, just that you don't hear them.

Is the USA like the rest of the world in terms of culture? Number of
hams? Enforcement of regulations?

By and large, hams seem to be a cooperative
and responsible population with a good record of self-regulation.

As a group, yes. But in certain specific instances (like 75 meters)
things are not so rosy.

I thought the proposal authors stated that concept quite accurately:

"We believe the ideal band plan is one where good judgment on the operato=
r's
part supports use of any mode and any frequency available within their li=
cense
class. Good judgment is centered on cooperative, flexible use of frequenc=
ies,
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 enforc=
ement.

Sounds nice. Now tell it to those running robot pactor stations. Or
K1MAN..

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 wo=
uld
lead to greater band "loading" and improved utilization by allowing an op=
erator
to choose a clear spot on the dial across a greater frequency range.

What amounts to "a clear spot on the dial" varies with mode. All I need
for CW is a couple of hundred Hz. The folks running AM or hi-fi SSB
need 10 to 20 times that much, and their receivers are (of necessity)
much less selective.

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

Yeah, sure. How is the recipient of interference supposed to identify
the source?

"Automatic or semi automatic data operation not copied by the human ear b=
ecomes
of particular concern under our proposal, since the activity would be
unencumbered by subband.

That alone makes it a bad idea.

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 activ=
ities
and avoiding interference to other communications.

They can't even make that happen today. So we reward them by giving
them the whole band to play in?

Chronically failing to do so
would remain an actionable violation under existing rules against deliber=
ate
interference, since it could be shown such judgment had not been exercise=
d=2E

*If* they can even be identified!

"We contend that the goal of voluntary selection of operating frequencies=
for
improved spectrum use is best achieved through real-time assessment of va=
riables
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.

Sure they can, the authors of the proposal just don't want to.

--

Let's get down to what this proposal is really all about:

1) More room for the 'phone folks/less for the CW & data folks

2) Less constraint on the robot-data-mode folks

It's all gussied up with fancy, emotional verbiage like "real-time
assessment of variables in propagation and radio traffic load" but the
above two things are what it's really all about.

What it also amounts to is *rewarding* the use of
spectrally-inefficient modes. IOW, if the 'phone band is crowded, try
CW, PSK31 or some other mode that doesn't need so much spectrum!



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

So we all need new rigs with all the bells and whistles.

The separation of modes is a lot older than 60 years ago, too. It
derives from a whole bunch of reasons.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote

Let's get down to what this proposal is really all about:

1) More room for the 'phone folks/less for the CW & data folks

Unless I've missed something, that statement does not accurately reflect the
thrust of the proposal.

Yes, it would grant more spectrum to phone, equal to that now enjoyed by CW.
No, it does not diminish the spectrum available to CW.
No, it does not diminish the spectrum available to data -- in fact, it increases
it to equal that now enjoyed by CW.

2) Less constraint on the robot-data-mode folks

Yes, and less constraint to all other modes also.

Sort of in the spirit of the upcoming holiday, it has a ring of freedom about
it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote in message
oups.com...


Ginger Raveir wrote:
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.

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


Oh my, po wittle W3RV got upset.
BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
When are you going to upgrade from that no-code
tech license you have had for years?

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

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



The 160m band is becoming more popular with a.m. pirates.
Last time I was in Cincinatti & Atlanta, I heard pirates in the
160m band broadcasting most of the night.

KØHB wrote:
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.

As Bill and Ted say "Be *Excellent* to each other"!




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.

They're not kidding. Nothing is quite as much fun as a robot station
opening up right on top of you. Nothing much to do but complain. Then
wait the obligatory dogs life for anything to happen.

*They* don't care about things now. I doubt it will get any better if
the rules are just "play nice".



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.

But they don't.


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.

All we have to do is wait 15 years or so......

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:
wrote


Let's get down to what this proposal is really all about:


1) More room for the 'phone folks/less for the CW & data folks


Unless I've missed something, that statement does not accurately reflect the
thrust of the proposal.

Yes, it would grant more spectrum to phone, equal to that now enjoyed by CW.
No, it does not diminish the spectrum available to CW.
No, it does not diminish the spectrum available to data -- in fact, it increases
it to equal that now enjoyed by CW.


2) Less constraint on the robot-data-mode folks


Yes, and less constraint to all other modes also.

Sort of in the spirit of the upcoming holiday, it has a ring of freedom about
it.

So does freebanding and pirate stations.. ;^)

"Mike Coslo" wrote

So does freebanding and pirate stations.. ;^)

I'll ignore that remark, because I suspect you're an educated man who
understands the difference between freedom and anarchy.

The proposal (have your read it?) places great emphasis on responsibility and
accountability, the handmaidens of freedom.

73, de Hans, K0HB

From: on Fri 1 Jul 2005 09:21

K=D8=88B wrote:
wrote

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

There's nothing uncommon about my stations.

I respectfully submit that most US hams don't have antennas like yours,
Hans. Nor a similar location.

Tsk. Are you now whining over your LACK of antenna and space?

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

"Free-for-all" is an emotionally charged term, calculated to engender vi=
sions of
a street brawl.

Maybe to you.

...and to me and to any reader having English as a first language...

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.

Doesn't mean they don't happen, just that you don't hear them.

Is the USA like the rest of the world in terms of culture? Number of
hams? Enforcement of regulations?

A glimpse of xenophobia in PA? :-)

Explain these alleged "free-for-alls" taking place in other
countries. Do you have some recordings, in WAV form that all
might hear as a result of your careful, ceaseless monitoring?

By and large, hams seem to be a cooperative
and responsible population with a good record of self-regulation.

As a group, yes. But in certain specific instances (like 75 meters)
things are not so rosy.

Then what are YOU - as the monitoring raddio kopp of 34+ years
licensing - DOING ABOUT IT?

All anyone can see in here is your (seeming) never-ending
WHINING about alleged bad operating practices on 'phone.

I thought the proposal authors stated that concept quite accurately:

"We believe the ideal band plan is one where good judgment on the operat=
or's
part supports use of any mode and any frequency available within their l=
icense
class. Good judgment is centered on cooperative, flexible use of frequen=
cies,
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 enfor=
cement.

Sounds nice. Now tell it to those running robot pactor stations. Or
K1MAN..

What have YOU done about "robot pactor stations?"

What have YOU done about "K1MAN?"

All anyone can see is your WHINING about "CW" should have it all.

Guided by the use of good judgment, removal of artificial boundaries wou=
ld
encourage dynamic selection of frequency, affording an operator the best=
chance
to minimize compatibility issues with other modes and activities. This w=
ould
lead to greater band "loading" and improved utilization by allowing an o=
perator
to choose a clear spot on the dial across a greater frequency range.

What amounts to "a clear spot on the dial" varies with mode. All I need
for CW is a couple of hundred Hz. The folks running AM or hi-fi SSB
need 10 to 20 times that much, and their receivers are (of necessity)
much less selective.

It would seem that Hans Brakob's proposal addressed ALL amateur
radio in the USA...not those tiny few who were molded from the
same casting as James Miccolis.

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

Yeah, sure. How is the recipient of interference supposed to identify
the source?

How do YOU "identify the source" NOW?

"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.

That alone makes it a bad idea.

WHY? Explain. Show your work.

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 acti=
vities
and avoiding interference to other communications.

They can't even make that happen today. So we reward them by giving
them the whole band to play in?

YOU already have the "whole band to play in."

If, like your previous boasting, you can "work through" in the
midst of QRM with your beloved "CW" and not be worried. Why are
you whining about "rewards" for others?

Chronically failing to do so
would remain an actionable violation under existing rules against delibe=
rate
interference, since it could be shown such judgment had not been exercis=
ed.

*If* they can even be identified!

You are unable to "identify" QRM YOU get? Tsk, tsk. All that
amateur radio time as an extra, plus two degrees, and you can't
figure it out?

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

Sure they can, the authors of the proposal just don't want to.

Tsk. Jimmie is angry because he can't have HIS special place in
the spectrum sandbox!

--

Let's get down to what this proposal is really all about:

Yeah! It's all about DISPLEASING Jimmie!

1) More room for the 'phone folks/less for the CW & data folks

The "room" for "CW folks" was NOT shrunk.

Allowing more elbow room for Voice is a "crime?"

2) Less constraint on the robot-data-mode folks

Let NO ONE disturb the HUMAN ROBOT MODE "CW" ops!

It's all gussied up with fancy, emotional verbiage like "real-time
assessment of variables in propagation and radio traffic load" but the
above two things are what it's really all about.

Oooooo! "Gussied up!" How terrible! :-)

What it also amounts to is *rewarding* the use of
spectrally-inefficient modes. IOW, if the 'phone band is crowded, try
CW, PSK31 or some other mode that doesn't need so much spectrum!

"The World According to Gorp." :-)

Gorp. Jimmie is on the Trail, mixing metaphors in the bag,
raisin the dead with salty peanuts.

The longer-for-the-past should realize that the FIRST "CW"
Spark, had all the bandwidth of nearly an entire band... :-)

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

So we all need new rigs with all the bells and whistles.

Tsk. You only need to polish your bells and clean your
whistles...and quit blowing that dirty whistle...your pea
is bobbling and giving you a distorted tone.

YOU are the double-degreed engineer in here...YOU give the
"amateur community" the guidance it needs in technology.

YOU said you were a "radio manufacturer," let's see YOU produce
the adapter kits...?

The separation of modes is a lot older than 60 years ago, too. It
derives from a whole bunch of reasons.

List those "reasons." Show your work.

The "separation of modes" is no older than 71 years, the
creation of the FCC by the Communications Act of 1934.

Other than making HF amateur radio solely "CW" (for your
personal benefit and "reward") tell all what YOU would
propose for the OTHERS of the FUTURE?

dot dot