|
"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 |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com