"Dee Flint" wrote

That's what will be the real problem. As so many have pointed out, there is
no organization to which the majority of hams belongs, at least in this
country. While the ARRL is the largest, the majority of the ham population
does NOT belong to it and will likely scream bloody murder if they were to get
to establish the band plan.


That's what makes the IARU an attractive vehicle. While no individual pays
memberships dues in IARU, all hams are defacto members of IARU because each
country has a representative who represents ALL hams in their jurisdiction
independent of whether they are members of the national "club" like ARRL, RAC,
RSGB, DARC, JARL, or whatever.


You mention the IARU but that won't work right now either. We have some
additional frequencies that they do not. Tasking them with planning is not
appropriate for frequencies used only by a single country or very small group
of countries. Then of course there is the sovereignty issue. Some countries,
including the US, probably will not want to give them that much power.


Huh?

IARU is not a government agency. It is us, the hams of the world, totally
independent of national governments and independent of international
organizations like ITU or CEPT. Who better than the hams to decide how
ham frequencies should be used? Are we so conditioned to "big government"
dependency that (within our allocations) we need disinvolved government
bureaucrats to make decisions that much more logically belong to the actual
affected users?

I agree with you that some frequencies are better planned at a more local level
when those plans have no global implications. IARU is already regionally
localized into Region I, II, and III, and that localization makes perfect sense
for shared MF/HF bands. Further localization for "national only" bands, and for
V/UHF allocations is a natural extension of the idea. An example of that model
is the state/regional-localized V/UHF NFCC bandplanning which already operates
independently of the FCC and ARRL in the US.

Finally, having the IARU (or any other body) designate a mandatory band plan
goes against the principle of "free market" for dynamic allocation of the
frequencies.

To the extent that the band plan would not be dynamic on a minute-to-minute
schedule, you are correct. But it certainly be more dynamic and responsive that
the current generation-to-generation schedule of §97.305.

A group would have to meet and reallocate as needed.

In the 1930's that certainly would have been an impediment. But 75 years later
in 2005, give me a list of 100 IARU representatives and within the next hour I
can establish a secure and private "meeting room" on the internet where they can
hold their allocation meetings, hammer out their agreements, and publish the
bandplan on a global basis before halftime of Monday Night Football.

73, de Hans, K0HB