HiYa Hans,

Are you wearing your uniform to the Legion Christmas party
this year?

Lloyd



"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"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