RadioBanter - View Single Post

July 1st 05, 10:20 PM

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