RadioBanter - Another Restructuring Proposal

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