|
wrote KØHB wrote: wrote But most of us don't have antennas or amplifiers like yours, Hans. There's nothing uncommon about my stations. I respectfully submit that most US hams don't have antennas like yours, Hans. Nor a similar location. My location is a suburban city lot on flat terrain in the acknowledge "black hole of propagation". My antennas are typical "Joe Tribander" --- one tribander, one "shorty-forty", usual collection of vertical alcoa and horizontal wire, no stacks, no long booms, modest height (55' telescoping tower with 15 foot mast extension, usually nested at about 40 feet). In a word, pretty average for a moderately active HF'er. It makes more sense than a free-for-all. "Free-for-all" is an emotionally charged term, calculated to engender visions of a street brawl. Maybe to you. Most of the worlds hams outside the US already enjoy the freedom to use the bands without government-mandated "segment by mode", and I notice no such brawls taking place. Doesn't mean they don't happen, just that you don't hear them. Is the USA like the rest of the world in terms of culture? Number of hams? Enforcement of regulations? By and large, hams seem to be a cooperative and responsible population with a good record of self-regulation. As a group, yes. But in certain specific instances (like 75 meters) things are not so rosy. I thought the proposal authors stated that concept quite accurately: "We believe the ideal band plan is one where good judgment on the operator's part supports use of any mode and any frequency available within their license class. Good judgment is centered on cooperative, flexible use of frequencies, with a specific goal of avoiding and/or resolving interference to others at a direct and low level, avoiding escalation and any need for outside enforcement. Sounds nice. Now tell it to those running robot pactor stations. Or K1MAN.. Guided by the use of good judgment, removal of artificial boundaries would encourage dynamic selection of frequency, affording an operator the best chance to minimize compatibility issues with other modes and activities. This would lead to greater band "loading" and improved utilization by allowing an operator to choose a clear spot on the dial across a greater frequency range. What amounts to "a clear spot on the dial" varies with mode. All I need for CW is a couple of hundred Hz. The folks running AM or hi-fi SSB need 10 to 20 times that much, and their receivers are (of necessity) much less selective. "Intentional interference with communications is a violation of the regulations, independent of the mode in use, and whether automatic, semi automatic, or manually keyed. Sanctions would continue to be available against deliberate interference or problems involving technical signal purity, using volunteer "official observer" type programs. If a documented problem remains chronic or unresolved, the intervention of federal authority would reinforce volunteer OO in self-regulation efforts, as it does today. Yeah, sure. How is the recipient of interference supposed to identify the source? "Automatic or semi automatic data operation not copied by the human ear becomes of particular concern under our proposal, since the activity would be unencumbered by subband. That alone makes it a bad idea. This group of users would have a specific challenge to maintain the good judgment pre-requisite by making certain their telemetry-polling systems recognize the presence of other modes and activities and avoiding interference to other communications. They can't even make that happen today. So we reward them by giving them the whole band to play in? Chronically failing to do so would remain an actionable violation under existing rules against deliberate interference, since it could be shown such judgment had not been exercised. *If* they can even be identified! "We contend that the goal of voluntary selection of operating frequencies for improved spectrum use is best achieved through real-time assessment of variables in propagation and radio traffic load. Efforts to improve spectrum use are currently constrained because these variables cannot be accommodated with fulltime, rigidly defined sub-bands. Sure they can, the authors of the proposal just don't want to. -- Let's get down to what this proposal is really all about: 1) More room for the 'phone folks/less for the CW & data folks 2) Less constraint on the robot-data-mode folks It's all gussied up with fancy, emotional verbiage like "real-time assessment of variables in propagation and radio traffic load" but the above two things are what it's really all about. What it also amounts to is *rewarding* the use of spectrally-inefficient modes. IOW, if the 'phone band is crowded, try CW, PSK31 or some other mode that doesn't need so much spectrum! "Additionally, contemporary technology offers interference protection at the receiver to an extent not possible 60 years ago, when protection was implemented by regulatory mandate to divide "phone" and "code" activity. Technology and patterns of use now encourage the more effective coordination that we propose." So we all need new rigs with all the bells and whistles. The separation of modes is a lot older than 60 years ago, too. It derives from a whole bunch of reasons. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote So does freebanding and pirate stations.. ;^) I'll ignore that remark, because I suspect you're an educated man who understands the difference between freedom and anarchy. Just a little zinger, Hans. 8^) The proposal (have your read it?) places great emphasis on responsibility and accountability, the handmaidens of freedom. Yup, I read it. I have mixed thoughts about it. I don't know that the present system is "broken", but I wouldn't mind having those robot stations all over the band instead of just the lower portions. Maybe they would be less likely to knock us PSK31 people off the air.. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
|
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in oups.com: K=D8HB wrote: wrote Nope - because Morse operators, in general, voluntarily stay out of the 'phone/image subbands. Ah, yes, I see. The hams have VOLUNTARILY sorted out where to transmit. In other words, a regulation wasn't needed. What a concept! But would U.S. phone ops VOLUNTARILY stay up the bands and out of the segments historically inhabited by the CW and digital users if they were not restrained from doing so? Not in our lifetimes. 73, de Hans, K0HB w3rv Yes and no. 99.99% of us would stay within the IARU bandplan, but that includes large swathes of phone spectrum where we aren't allowed to go by the current FCC rules. Voluntary means we get to choose the bandplan, and= I would choose IARU Region 2, not ARRL. I plead ignorance of the IARU bandplans. Do you have a link to 'em?? Even without seeing them yet I like the concept.=20 w3rv |
Javier Nunez wrote:
The 160m band is becoming more popular with a.m. pirates. Sure, it is. Last time I was in Cincinatti... "Cincinnati" & Atlanta, I heard pirates in the 160m band broadcasting most of the night. They must be very, very weak pirates if you have to be near Cincinnati or Atlanta to hear them. I bet the hams in Cincinnati and Atlanta can take care of 'em in no time. Dave K8MN |
|
|
|
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message .. . wrote in oups.com: I submit that we don't fix what ain't broke. But it is 'broke'. If I have to go split to talk to the DX, that's quite broke enough to need fixing. But fix it from the DX side. Do you really want to limit us to the same 40 meter band that they have? We'd LOSE part of the band. Actually this fix is being worked on. At the same conference where the ITU changed the treaty requirements for Morse code, they also put in a scheduled change for allocation of more of the 40 meter band to hams on a world wide basis. By something like 2007 or 2009 (I forget the year), hams outside this region will get up to 7.200 exclusively allocated to amateur radio so that they will overlap into our voice privileges thus making split unnecessary. Of course some will still use split just as some use split on bands where they don't have to today. Some countries have already allowed their amateurs to use the new allocation in advance of the turnover date. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in oups.com: K=D8HB wrote: wrote Most US hams live on or near the coasts, too. What works in the country (low-density-of-hams places) won't necessarily work in the city (high-density-of-hams places). Most of the rest of the developed world places far more restrictions on the ownership of firearms than the USA. And they have far less violent crime, too. Since that seems to work for them, would you propose the USA adopt such restrictions? My proposal is to remove restrictions, not add them! You're the fella propounding that restrictions are a good deal. I'm saying that because something works in another country doesn't mean it will work here. Perhaps we should adopt Canada's health care system too? That would end the busloads of people going north on trips to buy their medicines at reasonable prices. Almost nothing could be any worse than the state of health care in the US. There are lots worse places for health care. That doesn't mean the US system is the best, or even acceptable. My point was that if you suggest to most US citizens that we accept Canada's health care system, they say no. We could do a lot worse than Canada just by doing nothing. I've never had to deal with their health care system, so I don't know if it's better or worse. I do know that for some strange reason, the *same* prescription drugs made in the *same* factories are sometimes significantly less expensive in Canada. I propose that along with freedom (from arbitrary restrictions) comes the responsibility to act responsibly, and I submit that generally US hams have demonstrated that sort of responsibility. I submit that we don't fix what ain't broke. But it is 'broke'. If I have to go split to talk to the DX, that's quite broke enough to need fixing. You have to go split to work DX for two reasons: 1) On 40 meters, hams outside Region 2 only have 7000-7100 2) On the other HF bands, and on 40 meters for DX in Region 2, the DX *chooses* to work split. They could work transceive if they wanted to, but they *prefer* to work split. Note that DX in Region 2 often works split on 40 even though they have 7000-7300. If the rules are changed so that you can call the DX on their frequency, they may still decide to work split. 7100-7200 will become worldwide exclusive amateur in a few years. Some countries outside Region 2 have already opened 7100-7200 to their hams, and SWBC continues to move out of there. Yet even if we eventually get 7000-7300 worldwide exclusive amateur, the DX will probably still work split. Morse (a "narrow" mode) is allowed on all MF/HF frequencies except the 60M channels. Have you seen any problems caused by that? Nope - because Morse operators, in general, voluntarily stay out of the 'phone/image subbands. Ah, yes, I see. The hams have VOLUNTARILY sorted out where to transmit. In other words, a regulation wasn't needed. What a concept! The hams who use Morse, that is. Have you noticed that almost all on-air-behavior-related FCC enforcement actions are for alleged violations using *voice* modes? I guess no-one caught that guy who used to send ..-. ..- -.-. - .- on re= peaters around here Guess not! Do you think the number of hams doing similar things on voice is more or less than those doing such stuff with Morse Code? =20 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote 'Bandplan? We don't need no steenkin' bandplan!' I think bandplans are great, Jim. A bandplan is a dynamic construct, generally agreed by the band users, which adapts to "market forces". But FCC doesn't hand out dynamic bandplans; they hand out static band-mandates which tend to remain unchanged for multiple decades (a geologic age in a hobby which is charged by regulation to "contribute to the advancement of the radio art"). 73, de Hans, K0HB |
wrote Even though I disagree with almost all of it, I think it would be better if it were sent to FCC as a formal proposal. Because it would then get a lot more attention than it would as a comment. Doesn't that seem sort of risky to you? You don't (mostly) agree with the thing, but you think it would be better for FCC to give it "a lot more attention"? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote Even though I disagree with almost all of it, I think it would be better if it were sent to FCC as a formal proposal. Because it would then get a lot more attention than it would as a comment. Doesn't that seem sort of risky to you? Sure, but that's not the issue. ( "I spell my name...DANGER!")* You don't (mostly) agree with the thing, but you think it would be better for FCC to give it "a lot more attention"? Yes. You see, I have this wild concept that even ideas I disagree with are better off being discussed than being hidden away. You know, that whole "democracy" thing... I think you have come up with a proposal that represents a clear, coherent and concise point of view. That I don't agree with most of it is immaterial; I think it at least deserves the same exposure and discussion as the 18 other proposals, most of which are far less clear, coherent or concise. (like the one that would put beginners on 160 with limited power - wassup with THAT? Or the NCI and first NCVEC proposals, that are tunnelvision to the max. Or the second NCVEC proposal...) IOW, I think your proposal deserves to be discussed in a far wider forum than rrap. If the US amateur community as a whole rejects it, then no one can say it wasn't presented at the appropriate time. If the US amateur community as a whole accepts it, then no one can say it was the result of some small group pushing their ideas on others. The proposal of the "think tank" contains only one element of your proposal. You were *years* ahead of them! There's still time to put it into proposal form and send it to FCC as a formal proposal. Why not? Suppose it were sent to FCC, and they gave it an RM number. And suppose it drew a lot of comments that supported it. Say 75% in support. Who could then say it wasn't what the amateur community wants? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... wrote 'Bandplan? We don't need no steenkin' bandplan!' I think bandplans are great, Jim. A bandplan is a dynamic construct, generally agreed by the band users, which adapts to "market forces". But FCC doesn't hand out dynamic bandplans; they hand out static band-mandates which tend to remain unchanged for multiple decades (a geologic age in a hobby which is charged by regulation to "contribute to the advancement of the radio art"). 73, de Hans, K0HB The FCC hands out whatever will cover their own ass. Meaning, top priority at the commission is job preservation, not the advancement of communciations. FCC bureaucrats do whatever is necessary to preserve their paycheck, while continually hiding the fact that the commission is a dinosaur in an advanced age. |
From: on Jul 2, 11:08 am
K=D8HB wrote: wrote Even though I disagree with almost all of it, I think it would be better if it were sent to FCC as a formal proposal. Because it would then get a lot more attention than it would as a comment. Doesn't that seem sort of risky to you? Sure, but that's not the issue. WHAT exactly *IS* the issue then? You don't (mostly) agree with the thing, but you think it would be better for FCC to give it "a lot more attention"? Yes. You see, I have this wild concept that even ideas I disagree with are better off being discussed than being hidden away. You know, that whole "democracy" thing... Tsk, tsk, tsk. You are now going to demonstrate a remarkable degree of HYPOCRISY as quoted following: I think you have come up with a proposal that represents a clear, coherent and concise point of view. That I don't agree with most of it is immaterial; I think it at least deserves the same exposure and discussion as the 18 other proposals, most of which are far less clear, coherent or concise. (like the one that would put beginners on 160 with limited power - wassup with THAT? Or the NCI and first NCVEC proposals, that are tunnelvision to the max. Or the second NCVEC proposal...) Of course, anything that doesn't feature morse code and/or include morse code testing in the future is relegated to "trash." [very "democratic"] IOW, I think your proposal deserves to be discussed in a far wider forum than rrap. If the US amateur community as a whole rejects it, then no one can say it wasn't presented at the appropriate time. If the US amateur community as a whole accepts it, then no one can say it was the result of some small group pushing their ideas on others. Define "amateur community." Then go look at the Radio Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and show where the *ONLY* considerations for amateur radio regulations are to be put before the "amateur community." Are ONLY members of the "broadcasting community" allowed to comment on Mass Media Broadcasting regulations? Are ONLY members of "private mobile radio community" allowed to comment on PLMRS regulations? NO. The FCC - obligated by law - is REQUIRED to listen to ALL CITIZENS' comments. That is true democracy. True democracy is NOT a small group of a private organization in one corner of the country determining everything in amateur radio. Based on those EIGHTEEN proposals STILL before the FCC and with thousands of comments filed on them, there is NO SUCH THING as the "amateur community." There is an obvious NON-harmonius polarization evident within what MIGHT be called an "amateur community." You have NO "solution" to bring harmony to this mythical "amateur community" with the possible exception of everyone holding fast to the status quo, agreeing with the self-appointed mover-and- shaker "representative" called the ARRL. None of those "solutions' are democratic or even egalitarian. They are merely totalitarian and antiquated as well as biased and elitist. There's still time to put it into proposal form and send it to FCC as a formal proposal. Suppose it were sent to FCC, and they gave it an RM number. And suppose it drew a lot of comments that supported it. Say 75% in support. Who could then say it wasn't what the amateur community wants? Trying to be "logical" on hypothetical situations of your own devising is on the road to good old reducto ad absurdum city. There are EIGHTEEN proposals before the FCC and roughly half of those have been before them for two years. Has the FCC acted on its own "housekeeping" NPRM for regulations yet? And you now want to add a NINETEENTH proposal which - as you presuppose - will garner a "75% 'approval'?" Ridiculous. Where is this illustrious, "representative" league in terms of going "in there" and shaking the regulatory process tree? This "representative" attempted to oppose the revisions of S25 despite the IARU already taking a stand in favor of that revision - publicly - two years prior. This "representative" failed to bring about a 60 meter amateur band and was relegated to appeasing the five channels instead. This "representative" (of all hams) has continued to fail in obtaining a below-MF amateur band for years...even though Europeans have enjoyed such privileges for years. The "amateur community" is NOT the imaginary cohesive group of clubby members you fantasize. It is a wide-open diverse group whose "lowest classes" (Technicians) are fast approaching a MAJORITY of all U.S. radio amateur licensees. You MUST begin thinking much farther out than your own personal desires in order to advocate some "action." So far, you've NOT demonstrated any of that. =20 |
|
wrote: wrote: From: on Jul 2, 11:08 am K=D8=88B wrote: wrote Even though I disagree with almost all of it, I think it would be better if it were sent to FCC as a formal proposal. Because it would then get a lot more attention than it would as a comment. Doesn't that seem sort of risky to you? Sure, but that's not the issue. WHAT exactly *IS* the issue then? Changing the rules to what best serves the amateur radio service, Len. BUZZ the issue is what best allows the ARS to serve the public interest IOW, I think your proposal deserves to be discussed in a far wider forum than rrap. If the US amateur [radio] community as a whole rejects it, then no one can say it wasn't presented at the appropriate time. If the US amateur [radio] community as a whole accepts it, then no one can say it was the result of some small group pushing their ideas on others. Define "amateur community." In the case of FCC regulations, any person or group that is interested enough to comment on proposed revisions to the FCC rules affecting amateur radio. That includes but is not limited to licensed radio amateurs, unlicensed persons who are interested in amateur radio, equipment manufacturers, clubs, national, regional and local amateur radio organizations, and other interested parties. I've never advocated that *any* interested party not be heard. Never told anyone to "shut the hell up" in a newsgroup... What's your definition of "amateur [radio] community", Len? -- =20 btw, thanks again for confirming what I had long suspected.... |
wrote: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in oups.com: K=D8HB wrote: wrote Most US hams live on or near the coasts, too. What works in the country (low-density-of-hams places) won't necessarily work in the city (high-density-of-hams places). Most of the rest of the developed world places far more restrictions on the ownership of firearms than the USA. And they have far less violent crime, too. Since that seems to work for them, would you propose the USA adopt such restrictions? My proposal is to remove restrictions, not add them! You're the fella propounding that restrictions are a good deal. I'm saying that because something works in another country doesn't me= an it will work here. Perhaps we should adopt Canada's health care system too? That would end the busloads of people going north on trips to buy their medicines at reasonable prices. Break Almost nothing could be any worse than the state of health care in the US. Thrid world conuntries There are lots worse places for health care. That doesn't mean the US system is the best, or even acceptable. My point was that if you suggest to most US citizens that we accept Canada's health care system, they say no. speak for yourself I d say yea sure it beats what we have We could do a lot worse than Canada just by doing nothing. I've never had to deal with their health care system, so I don't know if it's better or worse. I do know that for some strange reason, the *same* prescription drugs made in the *same* factories are sometimes significantly less expensive in Canada. I have dalt with it, and ALL medical care is cheaper there, I can get and afford to get care there, one of the reason I am now living in Michigan (right next to Canada) I get my fathers drugs there and most of my own care I propose that along with freedom (from arbitrary restrictions) comes the responsibility to act responsibly, and I submit that generally US hams have demonstrated that sort of responsibility. I submit that we don't fix what ain't broke. But it is 'broke'. If I have to go split to talk to the DX, that's quite broke enough to need fixing. You have to go split to work DX for two reasons: 1) On 40 meters, hams outside Region 2 only have 7000-7100 2) On the other HF bands, and on 40 meters for DX in Region 2, the DX *chooses* to work split. They could work transceive if they wanted to, but they *prefer* to work split. Note that DX in Region 2 often works split on 40 even though they have 7000-7300. If the rules are changed so that you can call the DX on their frequency, they may still decide to work split. 7100-7200 will become worldwide exclusive amateur in a few years. Some countries outside Region 2 have already opened 7100-7200 to their hams, and SWBC continues to move out of there. Yet even if we eventually get 7000-7300 worldwide exclusive amateur, the DX will probably still work split. Morse (a "narrow" mode) is allowed on all MF/HF frequencies except the 60M channels. Have you seen any problems caused by that? Nope - because Morse operators, in general, voluntarily stay out of the 'phone/image subbands. Ah, yes, I see. The hams have VOLUNTARILY sorted out where to transmit. In other words, a regulation wasn't needed. What a concept! The hams who use Morse, that is. Have you noticed that almost all on-air-behavior-related FCC enforcement actions are for alleged violations using *voice* modes? I guess no-one caught that guy who used to send ..-. ..- -.-. - .- on = repeaters around here Guess not! Do you think the number of hams doing similar things on voice is more or less than those doing such stuff with Morse Code? =20 73 de Jim, N2EY |
KØHB wrote:
wrote 'Bandplan? We don't need no steenkin' bandplan!' I think bandplans are great, Jim. A bandplan is a dynamic construct, generally agreed by the band users, which adapts to "market forces". But FCC doesn't hand out dynamic bandplans; they hand out static band-mandates which tend to remain unchanged for multiple decades (a geologic age in a hobby which is charged by regulation to "contribute to the advancement of the radio art"). I'm a tad confuseld here. I thought that the only place where there was a specific segment that restricted modes was CW on parts of 6 and two meters, and voice only on the 60 meter allocations. I thought the rest was bandplan. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... KØHB wrote: wrote 'Bandplan? We don't need no steenkin' bandplan!' I think bandplans are great, Jim. A bandplan is a dynamic construct, generally agreed by the band users, which adapts to "market forces". But FCC doesn't hand out dynamic bandplans; they hand out static band-mandates which tend to remain unchanged for multiple decades (a geologic age in a hobby which is charged by regulation to "contribute to the advancement of the radio art"). I'm a tad confuseld here. I thought that the only place where there was a specific segment that restricted modes was CW on parts of 6 and two meters, and voice only on the 60 meter allocations. I thought the rest was bandplan. - Mike KB3EIA - No all the other HF bands have some degree of mandated restrictions. However none of the HF bands have CW only segments. HF does have CW/FSK only segments that phone, fax, SSTV must stay out of by regulation. I'm pretty sure you know all this but are just momentarily confused. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Mike Coslo" wrote I'm a tad confuseld here. I thought that the only place where there was a specific segment that restricted modes was CW on parts of 6 and two meters, and voice only on the 60 meter allocations. To get un-confuseld, (or perhaps more confuseld) ponder §97.305. Basically it says "(a) you can use CW anywhere", and then a lot of slicing and dicing and segregating and restricting for several pages. And oh-by-the-way §97.305(a) is a lie; contrary to "you can use CW anywhere", there are two "bands" where you can't use CW. dit dit de Hans, K0HB |
wrote in
oups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in oups.com: KØHB wrote: wrote Nope - because Morse operators, in general, voluntarily stay out of the 'phone/image subbands. Ah, yes, I see. The hams have VOLUNTARILY sorted out where to transmit. In other words, a regulation wasn't needed. What a concept! But would U.S. phone ops VOLUNTARILY stay up the bands and out of the segments historically inhabited by the CW and digital users if they were not restrained from doing so? Not in our lifetimes. 73, de Hans, K0HB w3rv Yes and no. 99.99% of us would stay within the IARU bandplan, but that includes large swathes of phone spectrum where we aren't allowed to go by the current FCC rules. Voluntary means we get to choose the bandplan, and I would choose IARU Region 2, not ARRL. I plead ignorance of the IARU bandplans. Do you have a link to 'em?? Even without seeing them yet I like the concept. w3rv This is a link to the IARU HF bandplans:- http://www.iaru-region2.org/hf_e.htm This has all three regions on it, although published on the Region 2 web site, so probably most up to date for that region (the one the US happens to be in). If we had a voluntary system in the US, as per most other countries, this is the bandplan I would go by. OTOH, the ARRL bandplan necessarily incorporates the current restrictions on phone. They might change it, or might not, but then I am not a member... For those who haven't followed the link, the phone segments for R2 start at 1840, 3635, 7050, 14112, 18110.5, 21150.5, 24930.5 and 28225. In fact, phone is allowed somewhat lower down on a non-interference basis, but if you want that info you'll have to actually read the thing! 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
wrote in
ups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in oups.com: KØHB wrote: wrote Most US hams live on or near the coasts, too. What works in the country (low-density-of-hams places) won't necessarily work in the city (high-density-of-hams places). Most of the rest of the developed world places far more restrictions on the ownership of firearms than the USA. And they have far less violent crime, too. Since that seems to work for them, would you propose the USA adopt such restrictions? My proposal is to remove restrictions, not add them! You're the fella propounding that restrictions are a good deal. I'm saying that because something works in another country doesn't mean it will work here. Perhaps we should adopt Canada's health care system too? That would end the busloads of people going north on trips to buy their medicines at reasonable prices. Almost nothing could be any worse than the state of health care in the US. There are lots worse places for health care. That doesn't mean the US system is the best, or even acceptable. My point was that if you suggest to most US citizens that we accept Canada's health care system, they say no. We could do a lot worse than Canada just by doing nothing. I've never had to deal with their health care system, so I don't know if it's better or worse. I do know that for some strange reason, the *same* prescription drugs made in the *same* factories are sometimes significantly less expensive in Canada. I propose that along with freedom (from arbitrary restrictions) comes the responsibility to act responsibly, and I submit that generally US hams have demonstrated that sort of responsibility. I submit that we don't fix what ain't broke. But it is 'broke'. If I have to go split to talk to the DX, that's quite broke enough to need fixing. You have to go split to work DX for two reasons: 1) On 40 meters, hams outside Region 2 only have 7000-7100 2) On the other HF bands, and on 40 meters for DX in Region 2, the DX *chooses* to work split. They could work transceive if they wanted to, but they *prefer* to work split. Note that DX in Region 2 often works split on 40 even though they have 7000-7300. This is because the US hams have to transmit in the BC band. If the US hams could transmit outside the broadcast frequencies this wouldn't continue. The DX works split so that their sigs aren't covered by BC QRM. If the rules are changed so that you can call the DX on their frequency, they may still decide to work split. 7100-7200 will become worldwide exclusive amateur in a few years. Some countries outside Region 2 have already opened 7100-7200 to their hams, and SWBC continues to move out of there. Yet even if we eventually get 7000-7300 worldwide exclusive amateur, the DX will probably still work split. They will if there are still broadcasters in 7150-7200, which there may well be. OTOH, if we had voluntary bandplanning, the IARU recommends that region 2 phone ops stay above 7050, which gives us 7050-7100 that is not in the BC band, versus 7100-7200 where they may still be left over broadcasters. Morse (a "narrow" mode) is allowed on all MF/HF frequencies except the 60M channels. Have you seen any problems caused by that? Nope - because Morse operators, in general, voluntarily stay out of the 'phone/image subbands. Ah, yes, I see. The hams have VOLUNTARILY sorted out where to transmit. In other words, a regulation wasn't needed. What a concept! The hams who use Morse, that is. Have you noticed that almost all on-air-behavior-related FCC enforcement actions are for alleged violations using *voice* modes? I guess no-one caught that guy who used to send ..-. ..- -.-. - .- on repeaters around here Guess not! Do you think the number of hams doing similar things on voice is more or less than those doing such stuff with Morse Code? 73 de Jim, N2EY I don't think the lack of this behaviour on CW has much to do with pure motives, but nore to do with a lack of audience. 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote I don't think the lack of this behaviour on CW has much to do with pure motives, but nore to do with a lack of audience. It makes a nice statistic to hang your hat on, but the since such antics are most readily "detectable" on voice you could make the same claim for any mode other than voice. I'm not certain that Jim means to do so, but the cumulative weight of his postings on the subject sends this message: "CW operations are allowed on all frequencies without restriction because CW operators can be trusted to do the right thing. SSB/AM/RTTY/AX.25/PSK-xx/AMTOR/PACTOR/SSTV operators can not be trusted, so their kind must not be allowed a similar freedom to cooperatively select operating frequencies." Worldwide evidence flies in the face of this lack of trust. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in ups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in oups.com: K=D8HB wrote: wrote Most US hams live on or near the coasts, too. What works in the country (low-density-of-hams places) won't necessarily work in the city (high-density-of-hams places). Most of the rest of the developed world places far more restrictions on the ownership of firearms than the USA. And they have far less violent crime, too. Since that seems to work for them, would you propose the USA adopt such restrictions? My proposal is to remove restrictions, not add them! You're the fella propounding that restrictions are a good deal. I'm saying that because something works in another country doesn't mean it will work here. Perhaps we should adopt Canada's health care system too? That would end the busloads of people going north on trips to buy their medicines at reasonable prices. Almost nothing could be any worse than the state of health care in the US. There are lots worse places for health care. That doesn't mean the US system is the best, or even acceptable. My point was that if you suggest to most US citizens that we accept Canada's health care system, they say no. We could do a lot worse than Canada just by doing nothing. I've never had to deal with their health care system, so I don't know if it's better or worse. I do know that for some strange reason, the *same* prescription drugs made in the *same* factories are sometimes significantly less expensive in Canada. I propose that along with freedom (from arbitrary restrictions) comes the responsibility to act responsibly, and I submit that generally US hams have demonstrated that sort of responsibility. I submit that we don't fix what ain't broke. But it is 'broke'. If I have to go split to talk to the DX, that's quite broke enough to need fixing. You have to go split to work DX for two reasons: 1) On 40 meters, hams outside Region 2 only have 7000-7100 2) On the other HF bands, and on 40 meters for DX in Region 2, the DX *chooses* to work split. They could work transceive if they wanted to, but they *prefer* to work split. Note that DX in Region 2 often works split on 40 even though they have 7000-7300. This is because the US hams have to transmit in the BC band. But the Region 2 DX could work transceive on 40. Yet they don't. If the US hams could transmit outside the broadcast frequencies this wouldn't continue. The DX works split so that their sigs aren't covered by BC QRM. On 40, maybe. But what about the other bands? There's no BC QRM on 20, for example, yet the DX often works split there. If the rules are changed so that you can call the DX on their frequency, they may still decide to work split. 7100-7200 will become worldwide exclusive amateur in a few years. Some countries outside Region 2 have already opened 7100-7200 to their hams, and SWBC continues to move out of there. Yet even if we eventually get 7000-7300 worldwide exclusive amateur, the DX will probably still work split. They will if there are still broadcasters in 7150-7200, which there may well be. Not for long! The broadcasters are moving out of 7100-7200. The whole world will soon have 7000-7200 as exclusively amateur spectrum. Yet the use of split will continue, as it does on other bands. OTOH, if we had voluntary bandplanning, the IARU recommends that region 2 phone ops stay above 7050, which gives us 7050-7100 that is not in the = BC band, versus 7100-7200 where they may still be left over broadcasters. But whose bandplan do we follow, if they differ? ARRL's? IARU's? RSGB's? What about bandplans that don't agree with license privileges? For example, Novice/TechPlus HF privs on 40 are 7100-7150 - CW only! Does the "think tank" proposal address that? Morse (a "narrow" mode) is allowed on all MF/HF frequencies except the 60M channels. Have you seen any problems caused by that? Nope - because Morse operators, in general, voluntarily stay out of the 'phone/image subbands. Ah, yes, I see. The hams have VOLUNTARILY sorted out where to transmit. In other words, a regulation wasn't needed. What a concept! The hams who use Morse, that is. Have you noticed that almost all on-air-behavior-related FCC enforcement actions are for alleged violations using *voice* modes? I guess no-one caught that guy who used to send ..-. ..- -.-. - .- on repeaters around here Guess not! Do you think the number of hams doing similar things on voice is mo= re or less than those doing such stuff with Morse Code? I don't think the lack of this behaviour on CW has much to do with pure motives, but nore to do with a lack of audience. Why? I've been a ham 38 years come October, and spent most of my time on the air working CW. In all that time I've heard *nothing* that wasn't "G-rated" or embarrassing to the amateur radio service. *Nothing*. Yet in far less time, I can hear stuff on 'phone that causes me to spin the dial to get away from it. There's no shortage of audience on CW. The last Morse-code rated NAL (the first in many years) was for a guy broadcasting "code practice" on 40 meters 24/7. The violation wasn't for the content of his transmissions, nor for the one-way nature of the transmissions. It was for failure to adequately reply to FCC, and the obvious lack of the required station control. Now look at some of the NALs for 'phone operation.=20 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in This is because the US hams have to transmit in the BC band. If the US hams could transmit outside the broadcast frequencies this wouldn't continue. The DX works split so that their sigs aren't covered by BC QRM. The 40M phone DX in region 2 more often than not works split anyway even though it's legal for them to transceive. They do it simply to keep themselves from getting buried under their own pileups. The "DX windows" on 75 and 20 phone are both well within the U.S.phone bands but the DX still habitually listens up for for calls from both U.S. and other DX for the same reason. Including the DX in the other regions. It also works the other way around. Given the choice U.S. dxers generally prefer working split so that they can hear the DX below the hordes calling him/her. This is particularly true on 160/75/40 where the DX is often down near the noise level. And I can't count the number of new ones I've logged with split CW by "transmitting up". 73 de Alun, N3KIP w3rv |
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in ups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in egroups.com: This is because the US hams have to transmit in the BC band. That isn't correct. U.S. hams are transmitting on the 40m amateur band. Europeans and other DX are *listening* for the U.S. SSB ops on a BC band. If the US hams could transmit outside the broadcast frequencies this wouldn't continue. The DX works split so that their sigs aren't covered by BC QRM. That isn't necessarily correct. The sharp, rare ops are operating split on *any* band if the pileup is huge. That keeps the callers from covering his sigs. If the rules are changed so that you can call the DX on their frequency, they may still decide to work split. 7100-7200 will become worldwide exclusive amateur in a few years. Some countries outside Region 2 have already opened 7100-7200 to their hams, and SWBC continues to move out of there. Yet even if we eventually get 7000-7300 worldwide exclusive amateur, the DX will probably still work split. They will if there are still broadcasters in 7150-7200, which there may well be. It'll happen whether broadcasters are there or not. The hams who use Morse, that is. Have you noticed that almost all on-air-behavior-related FCC enforcement actions are for alleged violations using *voice* modes? I guess no-one caught that guy who used to send ..-. ..- -.-. - .- on repeaters around here Guess not! Do you think the number of hams doing similar things on voice is more or less than those doing such stuff with Morse Code? 73 de Jim, N2EY I don't think the lack of this behaviour on CW has much to do with pure motives, but nore to do with a lack of audience. So, hams using SSB act up because they think they'll be likely to have a non-ham audience? That doesn't compute. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote:
Alun L. Palmer wrote: If the US hams could transmit outside the broadcast frequencies this wouldn't continue. The DX works split so that their sigs aren't covered by BC QRM. That isn't necessarily correct. The sharp, rare ops are operating split on *any* band if the pileup is huge. That keeps the callers from covering his sigs. "Treachery, experience and a hundred watts beats a nitwit with two gallons every time." It'll happen whether broadcasters are there or not. Has been for decades. Now that SWBC biz is fading a bit and they're moving out of the band working split actually makes even more sense. It occurs to me that an argument could be presented about what us dxers do on 40 phone as a matter of standard operating practices is not the point the way Alun views the matter. Alun isn't interested in dxing which is OK, all he wants to do is go peacfully ragchewing with, say, one of his G-land chums. Who is calling CQ on 7.090 and there isn't a pileup in sight. Alun can't get the guy's attention because the guy isn't listening up the band for statesiders so Alun climbs into this venue and mumbles, whines, groans and bitches about not being able to chat with the G because po' Alun is stuck in bloody U.S. phone band and can't xcv with his chum. Does not flush. Go back a few years ago in the timeframe when I had the Big Wire fed by my silly little TS-50 HF mobile xcvr which I had up and running for the 40M RRAP CW Net exercise. The hoot to end all hoots. I digress as usual. I happened to hear an EI8 with a decent SSB sig yakking close to 7.100 with some station who was too weak for me to copy. I set his freq on VFO A then fished around the band above 7.150 for a reasonably clear freq with VFO B and found one around 7.235 as I recall. Paddled out a quick "QSX 7235 de W3RV? K" on his freq. "W3RV stand by" with a brouge ya could cut with a knife. Which I did and switched the TS-50 to LSB split and sat back while he finished with the weak Euro and called me. Turned out to be a very enjoyable one hour ragchew. As if there's anything new about any of it. How many times David . . . ? .. . . Dave K8MN w3rv |
Dave Heil wrote:
Alun L. Palmer wrote: If the US hams could transmit outside the broadcast frequencies this wouldn't continue. The DX works split so that their sigs aren't covered by BC QRM. That isn't necessarily correct. The sharp, rare ops are operating split on *any* band if the pileup is huge. That keeps the callers from covering his sigs. "Treachery, experience and a hundred watts beats a nitwit with two gallons every time." It'll happen whether broadcasters are there or not. Has been for decades. Now that SWBC biz is fading a bit and they're moving out of the band too working split actually makes even more sense. It occurs to me that an argument could be presented about what us dxers do on 40 phone as a matter of standard operating practices is not the point the way Alun views the matter. Alun isn't interested in dxing which is OK, all he wants to do is go peacfully ragchewing with, say, one of his G-land chums. Who is calling CQ on 7.090 and there isn't a pileup in sight. Alun can't get the guy's attention because the guy isn't listening up the band for statesiders so Alun climbs into this venue and mumbles, whines, groans and bitches about not being able to chat with the G because po' Alun is stuck in the bloody U.S. phone band and can't xcv with his chum. Does not flush. Go back a few years ago in the timeframe when I had the Big Wire fed by my silly little TS-50 HF mobile xcvr which I had up and running for the 40M RRAP CW Net exercise. The hoot to end all hoots. I digress as usual. I happened to hear an EI8 with a decent SSB sig yakking close to 7.100 with some station who was too weak for me to copy. I set his freq on VFO A then fished around the band above 7.150 for a reasonably clear freq with VFO B and found one around 7.235 as I recall. Paddled out a quick "QSX 7235 de W3RV? K" on his freq. "W3RV stand by" with a brouge ya could cut with a knife. Which I did and switched the TS-50 to LSB split and sat back while he finished with the weak Euro and called me. Turned out to be a very enjoyable one hour ragchew. As if there's anything new about any of it. How many times David . . . ? .. . . Dave K8MN w3rv |
Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in This is a link to the IARU HF bandplans:- http://www.iaru-region2.org/hf_e.htm This has all three regions on it, although published on the Region 2 web site, so probably most up to date for that region (the one the US happens to be in). If we had a voluntary system in the US, as per most other countries, this is the bandplan I would go by. OTOH, the ARRL bandplan necessarily incorporates the current restrictions on phone. They might change it, or might not, but then I am not a member... For those who haven't followed the link, the phone segments for R2 start at 1840, 3635, 7050, 14112, 18110.5, 21150.5, 24930.5 and 28225. In fact, phone is allowed somewhat lower down on a non-interference basis, but if you want that info you'll have to actually read the thing! Whatever, took a whole two minutes Alun. I would not like to operate in that regime. In the first place it's far too complicated, much more complicated than the ARRL plan, complexity being an auto-turnoff bound to get busted right and left in practice. Second it's sorely out of date with it's "allocation" for ax.25 ops. How much packet to we hear any longer on 40?? Further where do the modern digital modes like PSK-31 fit into this plan? They're not even mentioned. Ditto the looming opening of 7100-7200 in regions 1 and 3. Looks like the thing was laid out 20 years ago, it's an artifact. My big squawk with it though is that the top end of the CW-exclusive segemnt is 7.035. That's just plain nuts, only allows 10 Khz for U.S. non-Extras to operaste phone-free which simply will not work. Particularly given the ongoing surge of 40M QRP CW ops by all classes of HF-enabled licensees in all regions. In a word fuhgeddit. 73 de Alun, N3KIP w3rv |
wrote:
Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in This is a link to the IARU HF bandplans:- http://www.iaru-region2.org/hf_e.htm This has all three regions on it, although published on the Region 2 web site, so probably most up to date for that region (the one the US happens to be in). If we had a voluntary system in the US, as per most other countries, this is the bandplan I would go by. OTOH, the ARRL bandplan necessarily incorporates the current restrictions on phone. They might change it, or might not, but then I am not a member... For those who haven't followed the link, the phone segments for R2 start at 1840, 3635, 7050, 14112, 18110.5, 21150.5, 24930.5 and 28225. In fact, phone is allowed somewhat lower down on a non-interference basis, but if you want that info you'll have to actually read the thing! Whatever, took a whole two minutes Alun. I would not like to operate in that regime. Nor I! In the first place it's far too complicated, much more complicated than the ARRL plan, complexity being an auto- turnoff bound to get busted right and left in practice. Second it's sorely out of date with it's "allocation" for ax.25 ops. How much packet to we hear any longer on 40?? Further where do the modern digital modes like PSK-31 fit into this plan? They're not even mentioned. I suppose they're all "digimode". Ditto the looming opening of 7100-7200 in regions 1 and 3. Looks like the thing was laid out 20 years ago, it's an artifact. Bingo! So much for "dynamic reallocation of resources".. My big squawk with it though is that the top end of the CW- exclusive segemnt is 7.035. That's just plain nuts, only allows 10 Khz for U.S. non-Extras to operaste phone-free which simply will not work. And that's if everybody plays by the bandplan! Alun says the 'phone segment starts at 7050 under that plan. Which means that 'phone is primary on ~83% of the band! CW is primary on ~11%. The "digimodes" are stuck in between. The spectrum-efficient modes are sacrificed to the spectrum-wasters. "From each according to his [spectrum] ability, to each according to his [spectrum] need...." where have we heard that before? Particularly given the ongoing surge of 40M QRP CW ops by all classes of HF-enabled licensees in all regions. 7040... In a word fuhgeddit. The 800 pound problem is that nobody sez whose bandplan is to be followed. Does IARU outrank ARRL in the USA, or the other way around? What if NCVEC, NCI, RSGB, CQ or qrz.com comes up with a bandplan of their own? Like you said - fugedaboudit. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1120481187.286229.201920 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: wrote: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in This is a link to the IARU HF bandplans:- http://www.iaru-region2.org/hf_e.htm This has all three regions on it, although published on the Region 2 web site, so probably most up to date for that region (the one the US happens to be in). If we had a voluntary system in the US, as per most other countries, this is the bandplan I would go by. OTOH, the ARRL bandplan necessarily incorporates the current restrictions on phone. They might change it, or might not, but then I am not a member... For those who haven't followed the link, the phone segments for R2 start at 1840, 3635, 7050, 14112, 18110.5, 21150.5, 24930.5 and 28225. In fact, phone is allowed somewhat lower down on a non-interference basis, but if you want that info you'll have to actually read the thing! Whatever, took a whole two minutes Alun. I would not like to operate in that regime. Nor I! In the first place it's far too complicated, much more complicated than the ARRL plan, complexity being an auto- turnoff bound to get busted right and left in practice. Second it's sorely out of date with it's "allocation" for ax.25 ops. How much packet to we hear any longer on 40?? Further where do the modern digital modes like PSK-31 fit into this plan? They're not even mentioned. I suppose they're all "digimode". Ditto the looming opening of 7100-7200 in regions 1 and 3. Looks like the thing was laid out 20 years ago, it's an artifact. Bingo! So much for "dynamic reallocation of resources".. My big squawk with it though is that the top end of the CW- exclusive segemnt is 7.035. That's just plain nuts, only allows 10 Khz for U.S. non-Extras to operaste phone-free which simply will not work. And that's if everybody plays by the bandplan! Alun says the 'phone segment starts at 7050 under that plan. Which means that 'phone is primary on ~83% of the band! CW is primary on ~11%. The "digimodes" are stuck in between. The spectrum-efficient modes are sacrificed to the spectrum-wasters. "From each according to his [spectrum] ability, to each according to his [spectrum] need...." where have we heard that before? Particularly given the ongoing surge of 40M QRP CW ops by all classes of HF-enabled licensees in all regions. 7040... In a word fuhgeddit. The 800 pound problem is that nobody sez whose bandplan is to be followed. Does IARU outrank ARRL in the USA, or the other way around? What if NCVEC, NCI, RSGB, CQ or qrz.com comes up with a bandplan of their own? Like you said - fugedaboudit. 73 de Jim, N2EY break Nobody outranks anyone, except the FCC! Voluntary means voluntary, and if we had voluntary bandplanning then some would undoubtedly use the wrong mode in the wrong place, but they would have a right to do that. I am merely saying that if Hans' plan were adopted I personally would abide by the IARU bandplan. It has exclusive CW frequencies on every band, so what's the problem? (Ducks head to avoid flames!). Good luck on avoiding the flames, if you work out something that works please share |
Dave Heil wrote: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in ups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in egroups.com: This is because the US hams have to transmit in the BC band. That isn't correct. U.S. hams are transmitting on the 40m amateur band. Europeans and other DX are *listening* for the U.S. SSB ops on a BC band. You are so clever. If the US hams could transmit outside the broadcast frequencies this wouldn't continue. The DX works split so that their sigs aren't covered by BC QRM. That isn't necessarily correct. The sharp, rare ops are operating split on *any* band if the pileup is huge. That keeps the callers from covering his sigs. You would think. If the rules are changed so that you can call the DX on their frequency, they may still decide to work split. 7100-7200 will become worldwide exclusive amateur in a few years. Some countries outside Region 2 have already opened 7100-7200 to their hams, and SWBC continues to move out of there. Yet even if we eventually get 7000-7300 worldwide exclusive amateur, the DX will probably still work split. They will if there are still broadcasters in 7150-7200, which there may well be. It'll happen whether broadcasters are there or not. DX101 The hams who use Morse, that is. Have you noticed that almost all on-air-behavior-related FCC enforcement actions are for alleged violations using *voice* modes? I guess no-one caught that guy who used to send ..-. ..- -.-. - .- on repeaters around here Guess not! Do you think the number of hams doing similar things on voice is more or less than those doing such stuff with Morse Code? 73 de Jim, N2EY I don't think the lack of this behaviour on CW has much to do with pure motives, but nore to do with a lack of audience. So, hams using SSB act up because they think they'll be likely to have a non-ham audience? That doesn't compute. Dave K8MN He didn't say, "non-ham audience," did he? Why did you? |
From: K0HB on Jul 3, 11:57 am
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote I don't think the lack of this behaviour on CW has much to do with pure motives, but nore to do with a lack of audience. It makes a nice statistic to hang your hat on, but the since such antics are most readily "detectable" on voice you could make the same claim for any mode other than voice. I'm not certain that Jim means to do so, but the cumulative weight of his postings on the subject sends this message: "CW operations are allowed on all frequencies without restriction because CW operators can be trusted to do the right thing. SSB/AM/RTTY/AX.25/PSK-xx/AMTOR?/PACTOR/SSTV operators can not be trusted, so their kind must not be allowed a similar freedom to cooperatively select operating frequencies." Morsemen are as pure as the driven snow.......................job bit bit |
wrote: wrote: Alun L. Palmer wrote: (IARU Bandplan) Ditto the looming opening of 7100-7200 in regions 1 and 3. Looks like the thing was laid out 20 years ago, it's an artifact. Bingo! So much for "dynamic reallocation of resources".. .. . hi-tech term for anarchy . . My big squawk with it though is that the top end of the CW- exclusive segemnt is 7.035. That's just plain nuts, only allows 10 Khz for U.S. non-Extras to operaste phone-free which simply will not work. And that's if everybody plays by the bandplan! Absolutely will not happen, guaranteed. Alun says the 'phone segment starts at 7050 under that plan. Which means that 'phone is primary on ~83% of the band! CW is primary on ~11%. The "digimodes" are stuck in between. CW + digital from 7.000 to 7.100, phone and image from 7.100 to 7.300 and call it a day. The spectrum-efficient modes are sacrificed to the spectrum-wasters. I don't support the notion that there should be "reward allocations" for spectrum efficiency because that can be twisted around and used as a rationale for reducing the space allocated to efficient modes. The better idea would be to keep the hard stops in place on their lower limits and let them clean up their QRM problems by cleaning up their modes & operations. The nonsense about narrow mode users giving up space to "accomodate" the results of junk modes like "hi-fi SSB" and overcompression and such really boils my oil. Let 'em sort it out their sandbox and stay away from our sandbox, they do it to themselves, let 'em deal with it. "From each according to his [spectrum] ability, to each according to his [spectrum] need...." where have we heard that before? From Darwin. Crush or get crushed and become extinct. In a word fuhgeddit. The 800 pound problem is that nobody sez whose bandplan is to be followed. Does IARU outrank ARRL in the USA, or the other way around? What if NCVEC, NCI, RSGB, CQ or qrz.com comes up with a bandplan of their own? On MF/HF it's all compulsive, ignorable micromanaging by amateurs, an approach which has failed miserably in any number of fields. The FCC is the law, they're the professionals, they're not ignorable and their "bandplans" work just fine. Like you said - fugedaboudit. Dit . . . 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com