wrote
KØHB 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.

My location is a suburban city lot on flat terrain in the acknowledge "black
hole of propagation". My antennas are typical "Joe Tribander" --- one
tribander, one "shorty-forty", usual collection of vertical alcoa and horizontal
wire, no stacks, no long booms, modest height (55' telescoping tower with 15
foot mast extension, usually nested at about 40 feet). In a word, pretty
average for a moderately active HF'er.

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.

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", 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?

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 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.

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 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.

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
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.

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
becomes
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 activities
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 deliberate
interference, since it could be shown such judgment had not been exercised.

*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
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.

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
implemented
by regulatory mandate to divide "phone" and "code" activity. Technology and
patterns of use now encourage the more effective coordination that we
propose."

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

From: "K0HB" on Fri 1 Jul 2005 20:13


"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.

I don't think he does. He plays hockey, remember?


dot dot

KØHB wrote:
"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.

Just a little zinger, Hans. 8^)

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

Yup, I read it. I have mixed thoughts about it. I don't know that the
present system is "broken", but I wouldn't mind having those robot
stations all over the band instead of just the lower portions. Maybe
they would be less likely to knock us PSK31 people off the air..

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote in
oups.com:


KØHB 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.

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv



Yes and no. 99.99% of us would stay within the IARU bandplan, but that
includes large swathes of phone spectrum where we aren't allowed to go by
the current FCC rules. Voluntary means we get to choose the bandplan, and I
would choose IARU Region 2, not ARRL.

wrote:
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.

No more than CW opperators stick in the bandplans at VHF during FD I
was having to deal with CW sent well out of the bandplan on 6m
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB
=20
w3rv

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:


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.

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv



Yes and no. 99.99% of us would stay within the IARU bandplan, but that
includes large swathes of phone spectrum where we aren't allowed to go by
the current FCC rules. Voluntary means we get to choose the bandplan, and=
I
would choose IARU Region 2, not ARRL.

I plead ignorance of the IARU bandplans. Do you have a link to 'em??

Even without seeing them yet I like the concept.=20

w3rv

Javier Nunez wrote:

The 160m band is becoming more popular with a.m. pirates.

Sure, it is.

Last time I was in Cincinatti...

"Cincinnati"

& Atlanta, I heard pirates in the
160m band broadcasting most of the night.

They must be very, very weak pirates if you have to be near Cincinnati
or Atlanta to hear them. I bet the hams in Cincinnati and Atlanta can
take care of 'em in no time.

Dave K8MN

wrote in
oups.com:

KØHB 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 have 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
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!

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.

Almost nothing could be any worse than the state of health care in the US.
We could do a lot worse than Canada just by doing nothing.


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.

But it is 'broke'. If I have to go split to talk to the DX, that's quite
broke enough to need fixing.


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?


I guess no-one caught that guy who used to send ..-. ..- -.-. -.- on
repeaters around here

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.

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 in news:1120209440.081173.230080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.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



For once, I agree. I couldn't care less about a few news bulletins, and I
don't distinguish beyween him and the league, since I don't belong to that
either.

wrote in news:1120209984.177412.284160
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

KØHB 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



Again, the league's bandplan differs from the IARU's. The IARU sets aside
all of the amateur exclusive section (1810-1850) as a DX window, and makes
that half CW (1810-1830) and half phone (1830-1850). Now let's see, what do
the league recognise as a DX window? Isn't the whole thing 1830-1835? And
don't they assume that to be CW? - In the phone half! But, the bandplan is
voluntary, that is whichever one of them you choose to follow, or none. The
only real problem is that the league's version legitimises the local old
fart's net on 1845, for example, instead of placing it properly in the DX
window. Not that they would have to move anyway, because it's voluntary.
That's what voluntary means.

73 de Alun, N3KIP