K=D8HB wrote:
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 h=
ave
evidence that thousands of them hear my signal.

Sure.

But most of us don't have antennas or amplifiers like yours, Hans.

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.

Only if there were enough of them to have such problems. The Canadian
amateur population (thanks, Leo) is less than 10% of the US amateur
population.

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 pr=
ivileged
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!

It makes more sense than a free-for-all.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 matter=
s=2E

So it wasn't submitted as a restructuring proposal, but as comments to
other proposals.

Too bad. I'd like to see what the general reaction would be to such a
proposal, even if I don't agree with it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote


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?

If we regulate by that principle, then we should extend the same "just stay
inside the band" freedom to every mode with a low number of alleged violations.
I take it you'd be in favor of that? If not, why not?

So it wasn't submitted as a restructuring proposal, but as
comments to other proposals.

That's correct. It was formally submitted to FCC on three occassions when the
Commission solicited comments.

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

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?

If we regulate by that principle, then we should extend the same "just st=
ay
inside the band" freedom to every mode with a low number of alleged viola=
tions.

Only if the mode is as popular as Morse Code is on the HF/MF bands.

I take it you'd be in favor of that? If not, why not?

See above!

Do you include "robot" modes?

So it wasn't submitted as a restructuring proposal, but as
comments to other proposals.

That's correct. It was formally submitted to FCC on three occassions whe=
n the
Commission solicited comments.

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.

But it's *your* proposal, not mine.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:
wrote

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?

If we regulate by that principle, then we should extend the same "just stay
inside the band" freedom to every mode with a low number of alleged
violations.

Only if the mode is as popular as Morse Code is on the HF/MF bands.

Interesting. In other words, if SSTV or PSK-xx (just a couple of examples ---
pick your own other candidate) became as popular as Morse, then that mode ought
to enjoy the same "full band" freedom that only Morse now enjoys. That seems to
be inconsistent with your previous "modes should be kept separate" stance.
Maybe you're starting to see it my way after all.

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

wrote:
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?
break


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?

Anyone that did not like would say it as with anything in the ARS
=20
73 de Jim, N2EY

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

wrote:
From: on Jul 2, 11:08 am
K=D8=88B 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?

Changing the rules to what best serves the amateur radio
service, Len.

IOW, I think your proposal deserves to be discussed in a
far wider forum than rrap.

If the US amateur

[radio]

community as a whole rejects it, then no
one can say it wasn't presented at the appropriate time.

If the US amateur

[radio]

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."

In the case of FCC regulations, any person or group that is interested
enough to comment on proposed revisions to the
FCC rules affecting amateur radio.

That includes but is not limited to licensed radio amateurs,
unlicensed persons who are interested in amateur radio,
equipment manufacturers, clubs, national, regional and local
amateur radio organizations, and other interested parties.

I've never advocated that *any* interested party not be heard.
Never told anyone to "shut the hell up" in a newsgroup...

What's your definition of "amateur [radio] community", Len?

--

btw, thanks again for confirming what I had
long suspected....

wrote

But most of us don't have antennas or amplifiers like yours, Hans.

There's nothing uncommon about my stations.


It makes more sense than a free-for-all.

"Free-for-all" is an emotionally charged term, calculated to engender visions of
a street brawl. Most of the worlds hams outside the US already enjoy the
freedom to use the bands without government-mandated "segment by mode", and I
notice no such brawls taking place. By and large, hams seem to be a cooperative
and responsible population with a good record of self-regulation.

I thought the proposal authors stated that concept quite accurately:

"We believe the ideal band plan is one where good judgment on the operator's
part supports use of any mode and any frequency available within their license
class. Good judgment is centered on cooperative, flexible use of frequencies,
with a specific goal of avoiding and/or resolving interference to others at a
direct and low level, avoiding escalation and any need for outside enforcement.
Guided by the use of good judgment, removal of artificial boundaries would
encourage dynamic selection of frequency, affording an operator the best chance
to minimize compatibility issues with other modes and activities. This would
lead to greater band "loading" and improved utilization by allowing an operator
to choose a clear spot on the dial across a greater frequency range.

"Intentional interference with communications is a violation of the regulations,
independent of the mode in use, and whether automatic, semi automatic, or
manually keyed. Sanctions would continue to be available against deliberate
interference or problems involving technical signal purity, using volunteer
"official observer" type programs. If a documented problem remains chronic or
unresolved, the intervention of federal authority would reinforce volunteer OO
in self-regulation efforts, as it does today.

"Automatic or semi automatic data operation not copied by the human ear becomes
of particular concern under our proposal, since the activity would be
unencumbered by subband. This group of users would have a specific challenge to
maintain the good judgment pre-requisite by making certain their
telemetry-polling systems recognize the presence of other modes and activities
and avoiding interference to other communications. Chronically failing to do so
would remain an actionable violation under existing rules against deliberate
interference, since it could be shown such judgment had not been exercised.

"We contend that the goal of voluntary selection of operating frequencies for
improved spectrum use is best achieved through real-time assessment of variables
in propagation and radio traffic load. Efforts to improve spectrum use are
currently constrained because these variables cannot be accommodated with
fulltime, rigidly defined sub-bands.

"Additionally, contemporary technology offers interference protection at the
receiver to an extent not possible 60 years ago, when protection was implemented
by regulatory mandate to divide "phone" and "code" activity. Technology and
patterns of use now encourage the more effective coordination that we propose."