Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote
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.
Almost nothing could be any worse than the state of health care in the
US.
There are lots worse places for health care. That doesn't mean the US
system is the best, or even acceptable.
My point was that if you suggest to most US citizens that we
accept Canada's health care system, they say no.
We could do a lot worse than Canada just by doing nothing.
I've never had to deal with their health care system, so I don't know
if it's better or worse. I do know that for some strange reason, the
*same* prescription drugs made in the *same* factories are sometimes
significantly less expensive in Canada.
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.
But it is 'broke'. If I have to go split to talk to the DX, that's
quite broke enough to need fixing.
You have to go split to work DX for two reasons:
1) On 40 meters, hams outside Region 2 only have 7000-7100
2) On the other HF bands, and on 40 meters for DX in Region 2, the DX
*chooses* to work split. They could work transceive if they wanted to,
but they *prefer* to work split.
Note that DX in Region 2 often works split on 40 even though
they have 7000-7300.
This is because the US hams have to transmit in the BC band.
But the Region 2 DX could work transceive on 40. Yet they don't.
If the US hams
could transmit outside the broadcast frequencies this wouldn't continue.
The DX works split so that their sigs aren't covered by BC QRM.
On 40, maybe. But what about the other bands? There's no BC QRM on 20,
for example, yet the DX often works split there.
If the rules are changed so that you can call the DX on their
frequency, they may still decide to work split.
7100-7200 will become worldwide exclusive amateur in a few
years. Some
countries outside Region 2 have already opened 7100-7200 to
their hams,
and SWBC continues to move out of there.
Yet even if we eventually get 7000-7300 worldwide exclusive
amateur, the DX will probably still work split.
They will if there are still broadcasters in 7150-7200, which
there may well be.
Not for long! The broadcasters are moving out of 7100-7200. The whole
world will soon have 7000-7200 as exclusively amateur spectrum. Yet the
use of split will continue, as it does on other bands.
OTOH, if we had voluntary bandplanning, the IARU recommends
that region 2
phone ops stay above 7050, which gives us 7050-7100 that is not in the =
BC
band, versus 7100-7200 where they may still be left over
broadcasters.
But whose bandplan do we follow, if they differ? ARRL's? IARU's?
RSGB's?
What about bandplans that don't agree with license privileges? For
example, Novice/TechPlus HF privs on 40 are 7100-7150 - CW only! Does
the "think tank" proposal address that?
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?
I guess no-one caught that guy who used to send ..-. ..- -.-. - .- on
repeaters around here
Guess not!
Do you think the number of hams doing similar things on voice is mo=
re
or less than those doing such stuff with Morse Code?
I don't think the lack of this behaviour on CW has much to do
with pure motives, but nore to do with a lack of audience.
Why?
I've been a ham 38 years come October, and spent most of my time on the
air working CW. In all that time I've heard *nothing* that wasn't
"G-rated" or embarrassing to the amateur radio service. *Nothing*.
Yet in far less time, I can hear stuff on 'phone that causes me to spin
the dial to get away from it.
There's no shortage of audience on CW. The last Morse-code rated NAL
(the first in many years) was for a guy broadcasting "code practice" on
40 meters 24/7. The violation wasn't for the content of his
transmissions, nor for the one-way nature of the transmissions. It was
for failure to adequately reply to FCC, and the obvious lack of the
required station control.
Now look at some of the NALs for 'phone operation.=20
73 de Jim, N2EY
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
