wrote

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.

At the same time ridding us of the convolutions, mindless restrictions, and
inflexibilites of §97.305.

The bandplans would be under OUR (the users) control, not some dis-interested
bureacrat. Changes could happen dynamically as we needed them, not sit on a
backburner until some bureacrat retired and the new guy sorted through his
"pending" tray.

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

Measured how? If you measure only in terms of raw bandwidth consumption, then
CW or PSK probably wins. If you measure in terms of payload throughput-per-Hz
then then something like Q15x25 is dramatically more efficient.

Which begs the point anyhow, because in a service which is chartered with a
mission of experimentation and "contribute to the advancement of the radio art",
bandwidth efficiency is only a single measure of value.

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

I was using a simplified model to illustrate a point.

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

I'm not proposing "tossing out the regulations". I'm suggesting changing the
regulations to make them more dynamic and responsive to real-user needs.
"User-agreed bandplan with teeth" replaces the unweildy/inflexible dinosaur of
§97.305.


The widening variety of modes and operating methods means
we need more rules, not less.....

Spoken like a good bureaucrat! Are you a disciple of Bob Wexelbaum?

73, de Hans, K0HB