On Apr 22, 3:52 pm, wrote:


Which would you rather lose - 1 MHz of the 1296 MHz band, or all of
160, 40, 20, 30 and 17 meter bands? Same amount of bandwidth...


That's misdirection, Jim, and ignores the question "What are we going
to do about that?"


In 1912, amateurs were legislated to "200 Meters And Down", meaning
they were legislated off what were then considered to be the most-
useful wavelengths.


So maybe the answer is that the FCC should craft a new challenge of
similar magnitude to stimulate the Amateur Radio service to a new
golden age, similar to that which followed the 200-meters-and-down
challenge.

How about this, for a two step approach?

1) Institute a new "top" license class with a "technical quotient"
about 3 times as challenging as the current Extra class license, and
keep the question pool secret. Holders of this license could
experiment on any amateur frequency (with the usual "no deliberate
interference" caveat) with any modulation scheme or information
encoding scheme without special authorization or STA.

2) Starting 10 years from the effective date of the R&O, require that
the following band segments can only be used with modulation types and
information coding schemes which were invented in the previous 15
years. All of 160M. 3550-3600KHz. 3900-4000KHz. 7050-7150KHz.
7250-7300KHz. 14050-14100KHz. 14300-14350KHz. 21050-21100KHZ.
21400-21450KHz. All of 10M. 146-148MHz. 222-225MHz. All bands
above 432MHz.

On Apr 22, 11:02�pm, wrote:
On Apr 22, 3:52 pm, wrote:

Which would you rather lose - 1 MHz of the 1296 MHz band, or all of
160, 40, 20, 30 and 17 meter bands? Same amount of bandwidth...

That's misdirection, Jim, and ignores the question "What are we going
to do about that?"

It's not misdirection, Hans. It's a plain and simple question, meant
to focus on the fact that not all kHz are created equal.

In 1912, amateurs were legislated to "200 Meters And Down", meaning
they were legislated off what were then considered to be the most-
useful wavelengths.

So maybe the answer is that the FCC should craft a new challenge of
similar magnitude to stimulate the Amateur Radio service to a new
golden age, similar to that which followed the 200-meters-and-down
challenge.

Perhaps.

How about this, for a two step approach?

1) Institute a new "top" license class with a "technical quotient"
about 3 times as challenging as the current Extra class license, and
keep the question pool secret.

I like it! The only problem is, how would the question pool be kept
secret? How could FCC be convinced, after a quarter-century of
published Q&A pools and the VE system, that this new license class
needed a different exam system than all the rest?

*Holders of this license could
experiment on any amateur frequency (with the usual "no deliberate
interference" caveat) with any modulation scheme or information
encoding scheme without special authorization or STA.

The problem I see with that is, who defines 'experiment' or
'deliberate interference'?

I could see the license being used as a way around mode-subband
restrictions, rather than real experimentation.

2) Starting 10 years from the effective date of the R&O, require that
the following band segments can only be used with modulation types and
information coding schemes which were invented in the previous 15
years. *All of 160M. *3550-3600KHz. *3900-4000KHz. *7050-7150KHz.
7250-7300KHz. *14050-14100KHz. *14300-14350KHz. *21050-21100KHZ.
21400-21450KHz. *All of 10M. *146-148MHz. *222-225MHz. *All bands
above 432MHz.

Which means that 160, 10, 220 and all above 432 would no longer be
available for the use of SSB, DSB, AM, FM, RTTY, AMTOR, PACTOR, SSTV,
TV, PSK31, and CW. Plus considerable segments of the rest of the
amateur bands would lose those modes as well. Not by voluntarily
abandonment of old modes but by law.

I don't think that's a good idea. Just because something isn't brand
new doesn't mean it should be legislated off the air.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
oups.com
On Apr 22, 11:02?pm, wrote:
On Apr 22, 3:52 pm, wrote:

[snip]

So maybe the answer is that the FCC should craft a new
challenge of similar magnitude to stimulate the Amateur
Radio service to a new golden age, similar to that
which followed the 200-meters-and-down challenge.

Perhaps.

Putting my UK hat on, how would anything done by the FCC affect us over
here, or anywhere else in the world for that matter..?

Radio knows no international frontiers and the FCC has no jurisdiction
outside of the US.


73 Ivor G6URP

Putting my UK hat on, how would anything done by the FCC affect us over
here, or anywhere else in the world for that matter..?

Radio knows no international frontiers and the FCC has no jurisdiction
outside of the US.

I second that remark. There's more to radio than the FCC )

--
Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL
FISTS# 9666
Mid North Coast Amateur Radio Group
www.mncarg.org

wrote:

How about this, for a two step approach? [to the issue of losing spectrum]

1) Institute a new "top" license class with a "technical quotient"
about 3 times as challenging as the current Extra class license, and
keep the question pool secret. Holders of this license could
experiment on any amateur frequency (with the usual "no deliberate
interference" caveat) with any modulation scheme or information
encoding scheme without special authorization or STA.

How many people do you think would obtain this license? I don't see a
latent demand out there for authorization to experiment with modes that
require special authorization. I'm afraid that the actual result would
be only a tiny number of upgrades, which would serve as evidence that
the amateur radio service didn't need the spectrum it has now.

2) Starting 10 years from the effective date of the R&O, require that
the following band segments can only be used with modulation types and
information coding schemes which were invented in the previous 15
years. All of 160M. 3550-3600KHz. 3900-4000KHz. 7050-7150KHz.
7250-7300KHz. 14050-14100KHz. 14300-14350KHz. 21050-21100KHZ.
21400-21450KHz. All of 10M. 146-148MHz. 222-225MHz. All bands
above 432MHz.

I understand your reasoning here -- you're trying to encourage use of
new technology via regulation. Again, I'm afraid that it would have the
opposite effect in terms of maintaining spectrum allocations -- the FCC
would point to the lack of usage and use that as justification to
reallocate the spectrum.

Both of these ideas attempt to change behavior of the existing
populatiion of amateur radio operators. I think it's more important to
focus on ideas that expand the population of licensed operators by
attracting new people.

Your focus tends to be showing the regulators that hams are technical
innovators, thus they deserve frequency allocations. My focus tends to
be increasing the overall population of the users to increase the usage
of our allocations, thus justifying them. Both of these techniques work
and can be used at the same time.

I really think that the key is communications, or call it public
relations or marketing if you wish. It has always struck me as ironic
that hams, in a hobby that is basically communications, are generally
horrible communicators. We need to motivate existing hams to actually
participate in the hobby, and we need to get the message out to
potential new licensees that ham radio is an attractive leisure-time
activity for them. Easy for me to say . . . but I've not personally
been very successful at actually *doing* anything.

On Apr 23, 9:57 am, wrote:


Which means that 160, 10, 220 and all above 432 would no longer be
available for the use of SSB, DSB, AM, FM, RTTY, AMTOR, PACTOR, SSTV,
TV, PSK31, and CW. Plus considerable segments of the rest of the
amateur bands would lose those modes as well. Not by voluntarily
abandonment of old modes but by law.


Exactly. The point of the exercise is to precipitate a "crisis" or a
"challenge" similar to the "200-meters-and-down" event which is widely
claimed as the catalyst which launched the "golden age" of amateur
radio advancement.

Only this crisis would leave some residual segments for those not
inclined to accept the challenge.

73, de Hans, K0HB

I second that remark. There's more to radio than the FCC )

--
Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL


I wholeheartedly agree, Jack, and I didn't mean to imply that FCC had
any jurisdiction outside of the USA.

73, de Hans, K0HB

On Apr 23, 10:38 am, "Ivor Jones" wrote:


Putting my UK hat on, how would anything done by the FCC affect us over
here, or anywhere else in the world for that matter..?


It would have no regulatory effect at all outside the jurisdiction of
the FCC, and your operations wouldn't be directly affected at all.

However, presuming the idea gained traction, obviously the secondary
effect would be that hams in other countries would want to also
experiment with any new modes or techniques they heard on the air and
would petition their regulators to allow it.

I'm reminded of a "reverse" example of this which happened here in
North America awhile back. For several years Canadian amateurs were
allowed on-the-air development and use of AX-25 (packet radio) but FCC
regulations prohibited W/K hams from participating. Eventually we
were able to convince FCC to allow this mode. Thus in this example,
the action of the Canadian regulators had an indirect secondary effect
of eventually changing the mind of the FCC.

73, de Hans, K0HB

On Apr 23, 9:57 am, wrote:

The only problem is, how would the question pool be kept
secret?


At this point in the discussion, I'd certainly consider that a
question which would need to be addressed in the implementation.

How could FCC be convinced, after a quarter-century of
published Q&A pools and the VE system, that this new license class
needed a different exam system than all the rest?

By a well constructed proposal which effectively demonstrates the
benefits of a renewed spirit of experimentation and innovation by
hams.


The problem I see with that is, who defines 'experiment' or
'deliberate interference'?


Who defines 'deliberate interference' now. K4ZDH comes to mind.

The definition of what would qualify as an experimental mode (not
currently in use) would be a trival administrative exercise.

I could see the license being used as a way around mode-subband
restrictions, rather than real experimentation.

Yes, Jim, there will always be some sea-lawyers who will try to
exploit 'cracks' in the regulations.

Obviously my PBI above is not a finished product and does not address
all the potential 'problems' and 'abuse opportunities'. I'd like to
consider it as a starting point for positive discussion. Thank you
for your participation in that spirit.

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote:
On Apr 22, 3:52 pm, wrote:

Which would you rather lose - 1 MHz of the 1296 MHz band, or all of
160, 40, 20, 30 and 17 meter bands? Same amount of bandwidth...


That's misdirection, Jim, and ignores the question "What are we going
to do about that?"

In 1912, amateurs were legislated to "200 Meters And Down", meaning
they were legislated off what were then considered to be the most-
useful wavelengths.


So maybe the answer is that the FCC should craft a new challenge of
similar magnitude to stimulate the Amateur Radio service to a new
golden age, similar to that which followed the 200-meters-and-down
challenge.

The golden age of Ham radio is the time at which the individual Ham got
started. I digress, though.

I don't think that restrictions or challenges are the way to go. The
1912 Hams were not put there as a challenge to get them to innovate.
They were put there because the frequencies were not thought to be worth
much to anyone.



How about this, for a two step approach?

1) Institute a new "top" license class with a "technical quotient"
about 3 times as challenging as the current Extra class license, and
keep the question pool secret. Holders of this license could
experiment on any amateur frequency (with the usual "no deliberate
interference" caveat) with any modulation scheme or information
encoding scheme without special authorization or STA.

2) Starting 10 years from the effective date of the R&O, require that
the following band segments can only be used with modulation types and
information coding schemes which were invented in the previous 15
years. All of 160M.

160 meters has a whole lot of baggage just to set up a station. Lot's
of real estate comes to mind, as well as other antenna issues.

3550-3600KHz. 3900-4000KHz. 7050-7150KHz.
7250-7300KHz. 14050-14100KHz. 14300-14350KHz. 21050-21100KHZ.
21400-21450KHz. All of 10M. 146-148MHz. 222-225MHz. All bands
above 432MHz.

Way too complex, IMO. And what happens to those 15 y.o. "new"
technologies on Year 15 plus one day? The modulation scheme has to find
a new place among all the other old school stuff. And tne need for
gentlemen's band plans increase (the newer/lesser used modes really like
to congregate, since there is a big difference between tuning a band to
find ssb or cw signals and trying to find one little PSK signal over a
whole band.

One real challenge would be to confine all Ham radio activity to one
band! ;^)

Modes are an interesting conundrum. Most Hams want someone to talk,
type, or tap to. So the coolest modulation scheme or digital voice mode
isn't going to be of much use unless you have someone on the other end
doing the same thing.

And to answer your question, we aren't going to be the last generation
of Hams, IMO.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -