wrote:
wrote:
From: on Jul 2, 11:08 am
K=D8=88B wrote:
wrote
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.
Doesn't that seem sort of risky to you?

Sure, but that's not the issue.

WHAT exactly *IS* the issue then?

Changing the rules to what best serves the amateur radio
service, Len.

BUZZ the issue is what best allows the ARS to serve the public interest


IOW, I think your proposal deserves to be discussed in a
far wider forum than rrap.

If the US amateur

[radio]

community as a whole rejects it, then no
one can say it wasn't presented at the appropriate time.

If the US amateur

[radio]

community as a whole accepts it, then
no one can say it was the result of some small group
pushing their ideas on others.

Define "amateur community."

In the case of FCC regulations, any person or group that is interested
enough to comment on proposed revisions to the
FCC rules affecting amateur radio.

That includes but is not limited to licensed radio amateurs,
unlicensed persons who are interested in amateur radio,
equipment manufacturers, clubs, national, regional and local
amateur radio organizations, and other interested parties.

I've never advocated that *any* interested party not be heard.
Never told anyone to "shut the hell up" in a newsgroup...

What's your definition of "amateur [radio] community", Len?

--
=20
btw, thanks again for confirming what I had
long suspected....

wrote:
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

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 me=
an
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.


Break

Almost nothing could be any worse than the state
of health care in the US.

Thrid world conuntries


There are lots worse places for health care. That doesn't mean the US
system is the best, or even acceptable.

My point was that if you suggest to most US citizens that we
accept Canada's health care system, they say no.

speak for yourself I d say yea sure it beats what we have

We could do a lot worse than Canada just by doing nothing.

I've never had to deal with their health care system, so I don't know
if it's better or worse. I do know that for some strange reason, the
*same* prescription drugs made in the *same* factories are sometimes
significantly less expensive in Canada.

I have dalt with it, and ALL medical care is cheaper there, I can get
and afford to get care there, one of the reason I am now living in
Michigan (right next to Canada) I get my fathers drugs there and most
of my own care


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.

You have to go split to work DX for two reasons:

1) On 40 meters, hams outside Region 2 only have 7000-7100

2) On the other HF bands, and on 40 meters for DX in Region 2, the DX
*chooses* to work split. They could work transceive if they wanted to,
but they *prefer* to work split.

Note that DX in Region 2 often works split on 40 even though
they have 7000-7300.

If the rules are changed so that you can call the DX on their
frequency, they may still decide to work split.

7100-7200 will become worldwide exclusive amateur in a few years. Some
countries outside Region 2 have already opened 7100-7200 to their hams,
and SWBC continues to move out of there.

Yet even if we eventually get 7000-7300 worldwide exclusive amateur,
the DX will probably still work split.

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

Guess not!

Do you think the number of hams doing similar things on voice is more
or less than those doing such stuff with Morse Code?
=20
73 de Jim, N2EY

KØHB wrote:
wrote


'Bandplan? We don't need no steenkin' bandplan!'


I think bandplans are great, Jim. A bandplan is a dynamic construct, generally
agreed by the band users, which adapts to "market forces".

But FCC doesn't hand out dynamic bandplans; they hand out static band-mandates
which tend to remain unchanged for multiple decades (a geologic age in a hobby
which is charged by regulation to "contribute to the advancement of the radio
art").

I'm a tad confuseld here. I thought that the only place where there was
a specific segment that restricted modes was CW on parts of 6 and two
meters, and voice only on the 60 meter allocations.

I thought the rest was bandplan.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
KØHB wrote:
wrote


'Bandplan? We don't need no steenkin' bandplan!'


I think bandplans are great, Jim. A bandplan is a dynamic construct,
generally agreed by the band users, which adapts to "market forces".

But FCC doesn't hand out dynamic bandplans; they hand out static
band-mandates which tend to remain unchanged for multiple decades (a
geologic age in a hobby which is charged by regulation to "contribute to
the advancement of the radio art").

I'm a tad confuseld here. I thought that the only place where there was a
specific segment that restricted modes was CW on parts of 6 and two
meters, and voice only on the 60 meter allocations.

I thought the rest was bandplan.

- Mike KB3EIA -

No all the other HF bands have some degree of mandated restrictions.
However none of the HF bands have CW only segments. HF does have CW/FSK
only segments that phone, fax, SSTV must stay out of by regulation.

I'm pretty sure you know all this but are just momentarily confused.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote


I'm a tad confuseld here. I thought that the only place where there was a
specific segment that restricted modes was CW on parts of 6 and two meters,
and voice only on the 60 meter allocations.


To get un-confuseld, (or perhaps more confuseld) ponder §97.305. Basically it
says "(a) you can use CW anywhere", and then a lot of slicing and dicing and
segregating and restricting for several pages.

And oh-by-the-way §97.305(a) is a lie; contrary to "you can use CW anywhere",
there are two "bands" where you can't use CW.

dit dit
de Hans, K0HB

wrote in
oups.com:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
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.

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

Even without seeing them yet I like the concept.

w3rv


This is a link to the IARU HF bandplans:-

http://www.iaru-region2.org/hf_e.htm

This has all three regions on it, although published on the Region 2 web
site, so probably most up to date for that region (the one the US happens
to be in).

If we had a voluntary system in the US, as per most other countries, this
is the bandplan I would go by. OTOH, the ARRL bandplan necessarily
incorporates the current restrictions on phone. They might change it, or
might not, but then I am not a member...

For those who haven't followed the link, the phone segments for R2 start at
1840, 3635, 7050, 14112, 18110.5, 21150.5, 24930.5 and 28225. In fact,
phone is allowed somewhat lower down on a non-interference basis, but if
you want that info you'll have to actually read the thing!

73 de Alun, N3KIP

wrote in
ups.com:

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

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.

There are lots worse places for health care. That doesn't mean the US
system is the best, or even acceptable.

My point was that if you suggest to most US citizens that we
accept Canada's health care system, they say no.

We could do a lot worse than Canada just by doing nothing.

I've never had to deal with their health care system, so I don't know
if it's better or worse. I do know that for some strange reason, the
*same* prescription drugs made in the *same* factories are sometimes
significantly less expensive in Canada.

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.

You have to go split to work DX for two reasons:

1) On 40 meters, hams outside Region 2 only have 7000-7100

2) On the other HF bands, and on 40 meters for DX in Region 2, the DX
*chooses* to work split. They could work transceive if they wanted to,
but they *prefer* to work split.

Note that DX in Region 2 often works split on 40 even though
they have 7000-7300.


This is because the US hams have to transmit in the BC band. If the US hams
could transmit outside the broadcast frequencies this wouldn't continue.
The DX works split so that their sigs aren't covered by BC QRM.

If the rules are changed so that you can call the DX on their
frequency, they may still decide to work split.

7100-7200 will become worldwide exclusive amateur in a few years. Some
countries outside Region 2 have already opened 7100-7200 to their hams,
and SWBC continues to move out of there.

Yet even if we eventually get 7000-7300 worldwide exclusive amateur,
the DX will probably still work split.

They will if there are still broadcasters in 7150-7200, which there may
well be.

OTOH, if we had voluntary bandplanning, the IARU recommends that region 2
phone ops stay above 7050, which gives us 7050-7100 that is not in the BC
band, versus 7100-7200 where they may still be left over broadcasters.


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

Guess not!

Do you think the number of hams doing similar things on voice is more
or less than those doing such stuff with Morse Code?

73 de Jim, N2EY


I don't think the lack of this behaviour on CW has much to do with pure
motives, but nore to do with a lack of audience.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote


I don't think the lack of this behaviour on CW has much to do with pure
motives, but nore to do with a lack of audience.


It makes a nice statistic to hang your hat on, but the since such antics are
most readily "detectable" on voice you could make the same claim for any mode
other than voice.

I'm not certain that Jim means to do so, but the cumulative weight of his
postings on the subject sends this message:

"CW operations are allowed on all frequencies without restriction because CW
operators can be trusted to do the right thing.
SSB/AM/RTTY/AX.25/PSK-xx/AMTOR/PACTOR/SSTV operators can not be trusted, so
their kind must not be allowed a similar freedom to cooperatively select
operating frequencies."

Worldwide evidence flies in the face of this lack of trust.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote
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.

There are lots worse places for health care. That doesn't mean the US
system is the best, or even acceptable.

My point was that if you suggest to most US citizens that we
accept Canada's health care system, they say no.

We could do a lot worse than Canada just by doing nothing.

I've never had to deal with their health care system, so I don't know
if it's better or worse. I do know that for some strange reason, the
*same* prescription drugs made in the *same* factories are sometimes
significantly less expensive in Canada.

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.

You have to go split to work DX for two reasons:

1) On 40 meters, hams outside Region 2 only have 7000-7100

2) On the other HF bands, and on 40 meters for DX in Region 2, the DX
*chooses* to work split. They could work transceive if they wanted to,
but they *prefer* to work split.

Note that DX in Region 2 often works split on 40 even though
they have 7000-7300.

This is because the US hams have to transmit in the BC band.

But the Region 2 DX could work transceive on 40. Yet they don't.

If the US hams
could transmit outside the broadcast frequencies this wouldn't continue.
The DX works split so that their sigs aren't covered by BC QRM.

On 40, maybe. But what about the other bands? There's no BC QRM on 20,
for example, yet the DX often works split there.

If the rules are changed so that you can call the DX on their
frequency, they may still decide to work split.

7100-7200 will become worldwide exclusive amateur in a few
years. Some
countries outside Region 2 have already opened 7100-7200 to
their hams,
and SWBC continues to move out of there.

Yet even if we eventually get 7000-7300 worldwide exclusive
amateur, the DX will probably still work split.

They will if there are still broadcasters in 7150-7200, which
there may well be.

Not for long! The broadcasters are moving out of 7100-7200. The whole
world will soon have 7000-7200 as exclusively amateur spectrum. Yet the
use of split will continue, as it does on other bands.

OTOH, if we had voluntary bandplanning, the IARU recommends
that region 2
phone ops stay above 7050, which gives us 7050-7100 that is not in the =
BC
band, versus 7100-7200 where they may still be left over
broadcasters.

But whose bandplan do we follow, if they differ? ARRL's? IARU's?
RSGB's?

What about bandplans that don't agree with license privileges? For
example, Novice/TechPlus HF privs on 40 are 7100-7150 - CW only! Does
the "think tank" proposal address that?

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

Guess not!

Do you think the number of hams doing similar things on voice is mo=
re
or less than those doing such stuff with Morse Code?

I don't think the lack of this behaviour on CW has much to do
with pure motives, but nore to do with a lack of audience.

Why?

I've been a ham 38 years come October, and spent most of my time on the
air working CW. In all that time I've heard *nothing* that wasn't
"G-rated" or embarrassing to the amateur radio service. *Nothing*.

Yet in far less time, I can hear stuff on 'phone that causes me to spin
the dial to get away from it.

There's no shortage of audience on CW. The last Morse-code rated NAL
(the first in many years) was for a guy broadcasting "code practice" on
40 meters 24/7. The violation wasn't for the content of his
transmissions, nor for the one-way nature of the transmissions. It was
for failure to adequately reply to FCC, and the obvious lack of the
required station control.

Now look at some of the NALs for 'phone operation.=20

73 de Jim, N2EY

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in

This is because the US hams have to transmit in the BC band. If the US hams
could transmit outside the broadcast frequencies this wouldn't continue.
The DX works split so that their sigs aren't covered by BC QRM.

The 40M phone DX in region 2 more often than not works split anyway
even though it's legal for them to transceive. They do it simply to
keep themselves from getting buried under their own pileups. The "DX
windows" on 75 and 20 phone are both well within the U.S.phone bands
but the DX still habitually listens up for for calls from both U.S. and
other DX for the same reason. Including the DX in the other regions.

It also works the other way around. Given the choice U.S. dxers
generally prefer working split so that they can hear the DX below the
hordes calling him/her. This is particularly true on 160/75/40 where
the DX is often down near the noise level. And I can't count the number
of new ones I've logged with split CW by "transmitting up".


73 de Alun, N3KIP

w3rv