wrote

97.3 Here are your authorized frequency bands. (list)
Stay inside of them.

97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and
communicate and do public service and talk to strangers
in far away lands and launch communications satellites
into space and any other cool technical "radio stuff"
you may think up. The government doesn't
care what mode you use for any of this. (See 97.3)

. . . wall-to-wall Pactor and spread-spectrum and
it all goes downhill fast from there . . .

If that's true, I think it already would have happened. The US is one of only a
very few countries which has mandated "mode sub-bands".

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

97.3 Here are your authorized frequency bands. (list)
Stay inside of them.

97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and
communicate and do public service and talk to strangers
in far away lands and launch communications satellites
into space and any other cool technical "radio stuff"
you may think up. The government doesn't
care what mode you use for any of this. (See 97.3)

. . . wall-to-wall Pactor and spread-spectrum and
it all goes downhill fast from there . . .

If that's true, I think it already would have happened. The US is one of=
only a
very few countries which has mandated "mode sub-bands".

The US is also one of the few countries with a large and relatively
affluent amateur radio population licensed to use relatively high
powered transmitters.

Canada, IIRC, has less than 1/10th the number of hams as the USA,
spread out across a larger area. Of course Canada also has a
proportionately smaller population. Yet the Canadian HF ham bands are
virtually the same as the US ones. Perhaps Leo can give us a more
precise comparison, and the Canadian amateur power limit.

--

The problems of repeater coordination on 2 meters (a band wider than
all amateur HF/MF bands put together!) show the difficulties of
depending solely on informal agreements. And repeaters are relatively
local!

It seems to me that it's more spectrum-efficient to have like modes
together, rather than mixed.

There's also the robot station situation to consider.


--

IMHO, narrow and wide modes do not coexist well. That alone is a good
reason to have subbands-by-mode, or at least subbands-by-bandwidth, on
the ham bands.


--

btw, Hans, when are you going to submit your restructuring proposal to
FCC?

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 30 Jun 2005 14:17:15 -0700, wrote:

snip

The US is also one of the few countries with a large and relatively
affluent amateur radio population licensed to use relatively high
powered transmitters.

Canada, IIRC, has less than 1/10th the number of hams as the USA,
spread out across a larger area. Of course Canada also has a
proportionately smaller population. Yet the Canadian HF ham bands are
virtually the same as the US ones. Perhaps Leo can give us a more
precise comparison, and the Canadian amateur power limit.

I'll try!

Canadian population - approx. 33 Million.

Current number of Amateur operators: approx. 55 thousand or so....the
vast majority reside in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia (in that
order)

Power limits: Basic licence: 250W; Advanced licence: 1KW.

This is a link to the recommended HF bandplans (please note that these
are not legislated by government - they are administered and published
by the RAC (our equivalent of the ARRL), and adhered to by the
Canadian amateur community by 'gentlemen's agreement' (and -um- peer
pressure, for those who stray....!)

Out Morse band area tends to be smaller than the US allocation - for
example, you'll hear the Trans-Canada Net on LSB at 7.055 MHz.

http://www.rac.ca/service/hfband.htm

73, Leo

snip

"Leo" wrote


Power limits: Basic licence: 250W; Advanced licence: 1KW.


Industry Canada RIC-2, Article 10.2 states this:


" The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced
Qualifications is limited to a maximum transmitting power of:

(a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 1,000 W to the anode or
collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio frequency energy
to the antenna; or

(b) where expressed as radio-frequency output power measured across an
impedance-matched load,

(i) 2,250 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type of
single sideband
emission, or

(ii) 750 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type of
emission."

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Leo" wrote


Power limits: Basic licence: 250W; Advanced licence: 1KW.


Industry Canada RIC-2, Article 10.2 states this:


" The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and
Advanced Qualifications is limited to a maximum transmitting power of:

(a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 1,000 W to the anode or
collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio frequency
energy to the antenna; or

(b) where expressed as radio-frequency output power measured across an
impedance-matched load,

(i) 2,250 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type
of single sideband
emission, or

(ii) 750 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type of
emission."


I notice that RIC-3 limits "Basic" licensees to 250W.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:59:11 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:


"Leo" wrote


Power limits: Basic licence: 250W; Advanced licence: 1KW.


Industry Canada RIC-2, Article 10.2 states this:


" The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced
Qualifications is limited to a maximum transmitting power of:

(a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 1,000 W to the anode or
collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio frequency energy
to the antenna; or

(b) where expressed as radio-frequency output power measured across an
impedance-matched load,

(i) 2,250 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type of
single sideband
emission, or

(ii) 750 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type of
emission."


That is the full version alright - which applies to our Advanced
licence. I prefer to use the 'input to the final' limits myself, as
they are easily calculated using the plate voltmeter and ammeter.

RIC-2's wording is odd - 10.2 refers to the holder of 'both the Basic
and Advanced" license. As you cannot hold the Advanced without first
obtaining (and continuing to hold - you collect the whole set up
here!) the Basic, these are therefore the limits for holders of the
Advanced licence.

The limits for those holding only the Basic licence are covered under
10.1:

10.1 Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic Qualification
The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic
Qualification is limited to a maximum transmitting power of:

(a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 250 W to the anode
or collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio
frequency energy to the antenna; or

(b) where expressed as radio-frequency output power measured across an
impedance-matched load,

(i) 560 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type
of single sideband emission, or

(ii) 190 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type
of emission.

I should have clarified that I was referring to 'input power' in my
reply - my omission there!

73, Leo

wrote

Canada, IIRC, has less than 1/10th the number of
hams as the USA, spread out across a larger area.

90% of all Canadians live within 75 miles of the USA, a distance trivial to HF
propagation.

Yet the Canadian HF ham bands are virtually
the same as the US ones.

Yes, they share the same bands with us, and without arbitrary in-band segments
based on mode or bandwidth. On 160M, 80M, 40M, 20M, 17M, 15M, and 12M they are
limited to a 6kHz bandwidth signal anywhere inside the band. On 30M they are
limited to 1kHz bandwidth, and on 10M they are limited to 20kHz bandwidth.

Since, as you point out, their bands are virtually the same ones we use right
next door, certainly we'd know about any problems with their style of
regulation.

the Canadian amateur power limit.

2.25 KW PEP output on SSB, 750W output on other modes. Certainly sufficient to
spill outside their southern border.

It seems to me that it's more spectrum-efficient to
have like modes together, rather than mixed.

Our HF bands are hardly congested, and as the "worldwide-except-USA" experience
shows, hams have pretty well figured out how to share the spectrum without
governments imposing mode/bandwidth segments on them.

IMHO, narrow and wide modes do not coexist well. That alone
is a good reason to have subbands-by-mode, or at least
subbands-by-bandwidth, on the ham bands.

Morse (a "narrow" mode) is allowed on all MF/HF frequencies except the 60M
channels. Have you seen any problems caused by that?

In Canada SSB is allowed anywhere on any MF/HF frequency. Have you heard
reports of problems with that? Europe (much more densly populated than US or
Canada) doesn't seem to have mode coexistance problems.

It's time FCC quits micromanaging our assigned spectrum.

btw, Hans, when are you going to submit your restructuring proposal to
FCC?

It's in their hands.

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Canada, IIRC, has less than 1/10th the number of
hams as the USA, spread out across a larger area.

90% of all Canadians live within 75 miles of the USA, a
distance trivial to HF propagation.

Within 75 miles of the border, maybe. But not within 75 miles of most
US hams.

Yet the Canadian HF ham bands are virtually
the same as the US ones.

Yes, they share the same bands with us, and without arbitrary
in-band segments based on mode or bandwidth.

But they do have arbitrary bandwidth limits.

On 160M, 80M, 40M, 20M, 17M, 15M, and 12M they are
limited to a 6kHz bandwidth signal anywhere inside the band.
On 30M they are
limited to 1kHz bandwidth, and on 10M they are limited to 20kHz bandwid=
th.

Since, as you point out, their bands are virtually the same
ones we use right
next door, certainly we'd know about any problems with their
style of regulation.

They have far fewer hams than the USA, spread out over a larger area.

the Canadian amateur power limit.

2.25 KW PEP output on SSB, 750W output on other modes.
Certainly sufficient to
spill outside their southern border.

It seems to me that it's more spectrum-efficient to
have like modes together, rather than mixed.

Our HF bands are hardly congested,

If they're not congested, why change the rules?

and as the "worldwide-except- USA" experience
shows, hams have pretty well figured out how to share the
spectrum without
governments imposing mode/bandwidth segments on them.

What works in the country (low-density-of-hams places) won't
necessarily work in the city (high-density-of-hams places).

An analogy:

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?

IMHO, narrow and wide modes do not coexist well. That alone
is a good reason to have subbands-by-mode, or at least
subbands-by-bandwidth, on the ham bands.

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.

In Canada SSB is allowed anywhere on any MF/HF frequency. Have you hea=
rd
reports of problems with that?

I've experienced problems with that personally on 40 meters, from hams
both north and south of the USA. Region 2 hams, who have 7000 to 7300,
but operate high-power SSB on 7050 and lower.

'Bandplan? We don't need no steenkin' bandplan!'

Europe (much more densly populated than US or
Canada) doesn't seem to have mode coexistance problems.

How many hams in Europe? How many with HF stations?

It's time FCC quits micromanaging our assigned spectrum.

I disagree.

The proposal is similar to the idea of allowing walkers, runners,
skateboarders, cyclists, motorcycles, cars, light trucks, buses and 18
wheelers to all use the interstates - with no speed or lane limits.

btw, Hans, when are you going to submit your restructuring
proposal to FCC?

It's in their hands.

You mean it was formally submitted as a restructuring proposal in the
past year or two?

Or do you mean your comments of several years ago?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Canada, IIRC, has less than 1/10th the number of
hams as the USA, spread out across a larger area.

90% of all Canadians live within 75 miles of the USA, a
distance trivial to HF propagation.

Within 75 miles of the border, maybe. But not within 75 miles of most
US hams.

Yet the Canadian HF ham bands are virtually
the same as the US ones.

Yes, they share the same bands with us, and without arbitrary
in-band segments based on mode or bandwidth.

But they do have arbitrary bandwidth limits.

On 160M, 80M, 40M, 20M, 17M, 15M, and 12M they are
limited to a 6kHz bandwidth signal anywhere inside the band.
On 30M they are
limited to 1kHz bandwidth, and on 10M they are limited to 20kHz bandw=
idth.

Since, as you point out, their bands are virtually the same
ones we use right
next door, certainly we'd know about any problems with their
style of regulation.

They have far fewer hams than the USA, spread out over a larger area.

the Canadian amateur power limit.

2.25 KW PEP output on SSB, 750W output on other modes.
Certainly sufficient to
spill outside their southern border.

It seems to me that it's more spectrum-efficient to
have like modes together, rather than mixed.

Our HF bands are hardly congested,

If they're not congested, why change the rules?

Becuase the ARS is not esp healthy

and as the "worldwide-except- USA" experience
shows, hams have pretty well figured out how to share the
spectrum without
governments imposing mode/bandwidth segments on them.

What works in the country (low-density-of-hams places) won't
necessarily work in the city (high-density-of-hams places).


An analogy:

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?

Not realy but it not realted to hi low density issues

IMHO, narrow and wide modes do not coexist well. That alone
is a good reason to have subbands-by-mode, or at least
subbands-by-bandwidth, on the ham bands.

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.

Gee guess you were listening to the same stuff I was on Feild day

In Canada SSB is allowed anywhere on any MF/HF frequency. Have you h=
eard
reports of problems with that?

I've experienced problems with that personally on 40 meters, from hams
both north and south of the USA. Region 2 hams, who have 7000 to 7300,
but operate high-power SSB on 7050 and lower.

'Bandplan? We don't need no steenkin' bandplan!'

Europe (much more densly populated than US or
Canada) doesn't seem to have mode coexistance problems.

How many hams in Europe? How many with HF stations?

It's time FCC quits micromanaging our assigned spectrum.

I disagree.

Obviously

The proposal is similar to the idea of allowing walkers, runners,
skateboarders, cyclists, motorcycles, cars, light trucks, buses and 18
wheelers to all use the interstates - with no speed or lane limits.

Gee it by and large works in the world and with HF being world wide
would not we be better not going our own way


btw, Hans, when are you going to submit your restructuring
proposal to FCC?

It's in their hands.

You mean it was formally submitted as a restructuring proposal in the
past year or two?

Or do you mean your comments of several years ago?
=20
73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote

90% of all Canadians live within 75 miles of the USA, a
distance trivial to HF propagation.

Within 75 miles of the border, maybe. But not within 75
miles of most US hams.

????????? I don't live within 75 miles of most US hams either, but I have
evidence that thousands of them hear my signal. 2-way HF contacts between VE
and W hams also are commonplace, so it seems that problems in the Canadian
regulations would be very visible here.

But they do have arbitrary bandwidth limits.

Yup, a single bandwidth applied to the whole band. Not sliced and diced and
micromanaged into all manner of itty-bitty pockets, yet allowing one privileged
mode free access to all those so-called protected segments. You can't really
pretend with a straight face that this hodge-podge makes sense!

Since, as you point out, their bands are virtually the same
ones we use right next door, certainly we'd know about
any problems with their style of regulation.

They have far fewer hams than the USA, spread out over a larger area.

You said that before, and I've disproven the "spread out over a larger area"
myth. Canadian hams are quite geographically concentrated, regardless of the
size of their wonderful contry. Most Canadians live in a 75-mile (give or take)
corridor along the US border, and are further concentrated into a few
metropolitan "clumps" along that strip.

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 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.

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!

You mean it was formally submitted as a restructuring proposal
in the past year or two?

It was formally submitted (3 times) in response to other related matters.

73, de Hans, K0HB