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