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."