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

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote


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!

But would U.S. phone ops VOLUNTARILY stay up the bands and out of the
segments historically inhabited by the CW and digital users if they
were not restrained from doing so?

Not in our lifetimes. =20

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

wrote in
oups.com:


KØHB wrote:
wrote


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!

But would U.S. phone ops VOLUNTARILY stay up the bands and out of the
segments historically inhabited by the CW and digital users if they
were not restrained from doing so?

Not in our lifetimes.

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv



Yes and no. 99.99% of us would stay within the IARU bandplan, but that
includes large swathes of phone spectrum where we aren't allowed to go by
the current FCC rules. Voluntary means we get to choose the bandplan, and I
would choose IARU Region 2, not ARRL.

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:


K=D8HB wrote:
wrote


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!

But would U.S. phone ops VOLUNTARILY stay up the bands and out of the
segments historically inhabited by the CW and digital users if they
were not restrained from doing so?

Not in our lifetimes.

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv



Yes and no. 99.99% of us would stay within the IARU bandplan, but that
includes large swathes of phone spectrum where we aren't allowed to go by
the current FCC rules. Voluntary means we get to choose the bandplan, and=
I
would choose IARU Region 2, not ARRL.

I plead ignorance of the IARU bandplans. Do you have a link to 'em??

Even without seeing them yet I like the concept.=20

w3rv

wrote in
oups.com:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:


KØHB wrote:
wrote


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!

But would U.S. phone ops VOLUNTARILY stay up the bands and out of
the segments historically inhabited by the CW and digital users if
they were not restrained from doing so?

Not in our lifetimes.

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv



Yes and no. 99.99% of us would stay within the IARU bandplan, but that
includes large swathes of phone spectrum where we aren't allowed to go
by the current FCC rules. Voluntary means we get to choose the
bandplan, and I would choose IARU Region 2, not ARRL.

I plead ignorance of the IARU bandplans. Do you have a link to 'em??

Even without seeing them yet I like the concept.

w3rv


This is a link to the IARU HF bandplans:-

http://www.iaru-region2.org/hf_e.htm

This has all three regions on it, although published on the Region 2 web
site, so probably most up to date for that region (the one the US happens
to be in).

If we had a voluntary system in the US, as per most other countries, this
is the bandplan I would go by. OTOH, the ARRL bandplan necessarily
incorporates the current restrictions on phone. They might change it, or
might not, but then I am not a member...

For those who haven't followed the link, the phone segments for R2 start at
1840, 3635, 7050, 14112, 18110.5, 21150.5, 24930.5 and 28225. In fact,
phone is allowed somewhat lower down on a non-interference basis, but if
you want that info you'll have to actually read the thing!

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in


This is a link to the IARU HF bandplans:-

http://www.iaru-region2.org/hf_e.htm

This has all three regions on it, although published on the Region 2 web
site, so probably most up to date for that region (the one the US happens
to be in).

If we had a voluntary system in the US, as per most other countries, this
is the bandplan I would go by. OTOH, the ARRL bandplan necessarily
incorporates the current restrictions on phone. They might change it, or
might not, but then I am not a member...

For those who haven't followed the link, the phone segments for R2 start at
1840, 3635, 7050, 14112, 18110.5, 21150.5, 24930.5 and 28225. In fact,
phone is allowed somewhat lower down on a non-interference basis, but if
you want that info you'll have to actually read the thing!

Whatever, took a whole two minutes Alun. I would not like to operate in
that regime. In the first place it's far too complicated, much more
complicated than the ARRL plan, complexity being an auto-turnoff bound
to get busted right and left in practice. Second it's sorely out of
date with it's "allocation" for ax.25 ops. How much packet to we hear
any longer on 40?? Further where do the modern digital modes like
PSK-31 fit into this plan? They're not even mentioned. Ditto the
looming opening of 7100-7200 in regions 1 and 3. Looks like the thing
was laid out 20 years ago, it's an artifact.

My big squawk with it though is that the top end of the CW-exclusive
segemnt is 7.035. That's just plain nuts, only allows 10 Khz for U.S.
non-Extras to operaste phone-free which simply will not work.
Particularly given the ongoing surge of 40M QRP CW ops by all classes
of HF-enabled licensees in all regions.

In a word fuhgeddit.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

w3rv

wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote


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!

But would U.S. phone ops VOLUNTARILY stay up the bands and out of the
segments historically inhabited by the CW and digital users if they
were not restrained from doing so?

Not in our lifetimes.

No more than CW opperators stick in the bandplans at VHF during FD I
was having to deal with CW sent well out of the bandplan on 6m
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB
=20
w3rv

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...


wrote:
KØHB wrote:
wrote


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!

But would U.S. phone ops VOLUNTARILY stay up the bands and out of the
segments historically inhabited by the CW and digital users if they
were not restrained from doing so?

Not in our lifetimes.

No more than CW opperators stick in the bandplans at VHF during FD I
was having to deal with CW sent well out of the bandplan on 6m

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

I worked 6m over FD including that wonderful band opening and had no problem
with out of bandplan 6m. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the CW allotments
of the bandplan?

Excerpt from http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/reg...ndplan.html#6m

50.0 to 50.1 -- CW, Beacons (by regulation CW only)
50.1 to 50.3 -- SSB, CW

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE