wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Canada, IIRC, has less than 1/10th the number of
hams as the USA, spread out across a larger area.

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.

Yet the Canadian HF ham bands are virtually
the same as the US ones.

Yes, they share the same bands with us, and without arbitrary
in-band segments based on mode or bandwidth.

But they do have arbitrary bandwidth limits.

On 160M, 80M, 40M, 20M, 17M, 15M, and 12M they are
limited to a 6kHz bandwidth signal anywhere inside the band.
On 30M they are
limited to 1kHz bandwidth, and on 10M they are limited to 20kHz bandw=
idth.

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.

the Canadian amateur power limit.

2.25 KW PEP output on SSB, 750W output on other modes.
Certainly sufficient to
spill outside their southern border.

It seems to me that it's more spectrum-efficient to
have like modes together, rather than mixed.

Our HF bands are hardly congested,

If they're not congested, why change the rules?

Becuase the ARS is not esp healthy

and as the "worldwide-except- USA" experience
shows, hams have pretty well figured out how to share the
spectrum without
governments imposing mode/bandwidth segments on them.

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


An analogy:

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?

Not realy but it not realted to hi low density issues

IMHO, narrow and wide modes do not coexist well. That alone
is a good reason to have subbands-by-mode, or at least
subbands-by-bandwidth, on the ham bands.

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.

Gee guess you were listening to the same stuff I was on Feild day

In Canada SSB is allowed anywhere on any MF/HF frequency. Have you h=
eard
reports of problems with that?

I've experienced problems with that personally on 40 meters, from hams
both north and south of the USA. Region 2 hams, who have 7000 to 7300,
but operate high-power SSB on 7050 and lower.

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

Europe (much more densly populated than US or
Canada) doesn't seem to have mode coexistance problems.

How many hams in Europe? How many with HF stations?

It's time FCC quits micromanaging our assigned spectrum.

I disagree.

Obviously

The proposal is similar to the idea of allowing walkers, runners,
skateboarders, cyclists, motorcycles, cars, light trucks, buses and 18
wheelers to all use the interstates - with no speed or lane limits.

Gee it by and large works in the world and with HF being world wide
would not we be better not going our own way


btw, Hans, when are you going to submit your restructuring
proposal to FCC?

It's in their hands.

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

Or do you mean your comments of several years ago?
=20
73 de Jim, N2EY