Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|