KØHB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:

Being a CW operator, quite frankly I'm happy about the flexibility that gives
me. But it's a mystery to me why all modes aren't treated in this generous
manner, and why other CW operators seem so firmly opposed to the
Canadian/European "market forces" model of frequency sharing.

Has to do with the compatibility of modes, Hans. Not all mode
share bandspace equally well.

That's a non-sequiter, Jim.

I don't think so.

That's why there are bandplans. IARU has been in the bandplanning business
mostly everywhere except in the USA for about 75 years. As new modes gain favor
(market dynamics change) they reach agreement in their bandplans to accomodate
the proportions of users of the various modes.

Supposedly, anyway. One problem with IARU bandplans is that the
ham bands in other countries aren't all the same as they are here.

Not all operators follow the bandplans, either.

Really? Well then I guess Riley will just have to invoke the "good amateur
practice" rule..... oh, never mind, he's already doing that. Not good enough
for you..... OK, add a new sentence to §97.101(a) so it reads as follows:

(a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur
station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and
good amateur practice. Nonconformance with IARU bandplan
guidance is specifically considered a violation of this paragraph.

What that does is to turn what are now voluntary bandplans into the
rule of law.

From what I read, the folks in Region 1 are already beginning to
notice problems being caused by the "market forces" (loudest
signal wins) model of frequency "sharing". A lot of Region 1
hams aren't so happy with how it's working out in real life.

"Already"? After 75 years?

The Region 1 folks haven't always had the free-for-all rules they
mostly have now. Neither has Canada.

---

One reason for the separation of 'phone and Morse/digital is to maximize the
utilization of the available bandwidth.

Say you have a band like 80/75 meters. 500 kHz of bandspace.

If we allow 2.5 kHz for each SSB QSO and 250 Hz for each
CW/digital QSO, (average) it's clear that the band could theoretically
support 200 simultaneous SSB QSOs or 2000 simultaneous CW/digital
QSOs.

Be careful what you wish for. Using that logic, it follows that fair frequency
management techniques would allow for an equal number of CW and Phone contacts
since the number of regular users is about equal, and CW would lose some
man-sized chunks of spectrum.

If you look at it that way, maybe.

OTOH, that approach rewards those who use the most spectrum, rather
than those who
use the spectrum the most efficiently.

The theoretical "even number" division of this
500kHz band would work out to 90 CW (250 Hz) and 90 SSB (2500 Hz) QSO's.

Which means only 180 QSOs in the entire 500 kHz. And where do the
digital folks
go?

The CW allocation would be 3500-3522.5kHz, and SSB would have the remainder of
the band. Sorry, but I can't live with that!

Why not? You're the one pushing "market forces", Hans. What will you do
when the
bandplan says that's what CW gets?

Neither should we live with the
current plan where CW has a theoretical 2000-QSO band, and SSB is limitedto a
theoretical limit of just 100 QSO's on that same band.

Agreed! But simply tossing out the regulations isn't the answer.

If the number of CW
users is roughly equal to the number of SSB users, why does CW now enjoy a 20-1
advantage in effective frequency space (measured in simultaneous QSO's)?

Old rules, old ideas. I see no mention of digital.

The future is probably going to be very different. For one thing, we
will soon have many
hams on HF who don't know any Morse Code at all. We also have, already,
a growing number using an increasing variety of "digital" modes which
cannot be decoded without
special equipment (usually a computer) and where the operator looks at
a visual display rather than listening to the band. There are also
"semi-automatic" and "robot" digital
stations with no operator at all.

How does a Morse Code station, or an SSB station, tell a digital
station that the digital
station is causing interference - or even identify the callsign of the
digital station? That's
just one problem.

The widening variety of modes and operating methods means we need more
rules, not less (unfortunately). I suggest that the bands be carved up
into subbands-by-mode - CW only, narrow digital, wide/auto digital,
analog voice. The ARRL "subbands by bandwidth" proposal tries to
address the problem but it's got too many flaws.

73 de Jim, N2EY