|
Another Restructuring Proposal
|
wrote in message ups.com... http://www.geocities.com/k3xf/Rver124F.pdf Actually it's NOT a "restructuring" proposal as the term has been adopted here (restructuring of license classes). Rather it is a proposal to rid us of FCC/ARRL-imposed bandplans. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... http://www.geocities.com/k3xf/Rver124F.pdf Actually it's NOT a "restructuring" proposal as the term has been adopted= here (restructuring of license classes). Strictly speaking, you are correct, Hans. Rather it is a proposal to rid us of FCC/ARRL-imposed bandplans. FCC imposes subbands; ARRL and others suggest bandplans. The former are not voluntary! In any event, it's possible that any restructuring NPRM would include provisions from this proposal if FCC thinks it has merit. Which might slow down the whole NPRM process in the bargain. No RM number yet, last time I looked. -- I think it's a terrible idea for a whole bunch of reasons. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote I think it's a terrible idea for a whole bunch of reasons. I think it still needs some work, especially the liberal/social-engineering part where they arbitrarily segregate hams to frequency segments based on license classes. In the republican/conservative spirit of "less government is better government", here is a better proposal: ------------------------------*------------------------------*---------- 97.1 To get an Amateur Radio license, you are required to pass a technical test to show that you understand how to build simple equipment which meets spectral purity specifications of (.....blah, blah, blah). You will be issued a license and callsign when you pass the test. Transmit your call sign once every 10 minutes when on the air. 97.2 Your power limit is 1.5KW to the antenna. 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) 97.5 Play nice. We'll try to keep the CBers out of your hair. Deliberate interference, unresolved dirty signals, or other asinine behavior on your part will cause Riley Hollingsworth to come and permanently kick your ass off the playground. Have fun. Love always, /signed/ FCC ------------------------------*------------------------------*---------------- |
K=D8HB wrote: wrote I think it's a terrible idea for a whole bunch of reasons. I think it still needs some work, especially the liberal/social-engineeri= ng part where they arbitrarily segregate hams to frequency segments based on lice= nse classes. In the republican/conservative spirit of "less government is better gover= nment", here is a better proposal: ------------------------------=AD------------------------------=AD-------= --- 97.1 To get an Amateur Radio license, you are required to pass a technical test to show that you understand how to build simple equipment which meets spectral purity specifications of (.....blah, blah, blah). You will be issued a license and callsign when you pass the test. Transmit your call sign once every 10 minutes when on the air. 97.2 Your power limit is 1.5KW to the antenna. 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 . . . 97.5 Play nice. We'll try to keep the CBers out of your hair. Deliberate interference, unresolved dirty signals, or other asinine behavior on your part will cause Riley Hollingsworth to come and permanently kick your ass off the playground. Have fun. Love always, /signed/ FCC ------------------------------=AD------------------------------=AD-------= ------- |
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". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
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 |
"KØHB" wrote in message nk.net... 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". 73, de Hans, K0HB The US also has one of the highest ham populations in the world. And human nature being what it is, there needs to be some type of discipline on the bands as to what goes where. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
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. 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. 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 bandwidth. 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. 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, 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. 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? In Canada SSB is allowed anywhere on any MF/HF frequency. Have you heard reports of problems with that? Europe (much more densly populated than US or Canada) doesn't seem to have mode coexistance problems. It's time FCC quits micromanaging our assigned spectrum. btw, Hans, when are you going to submit your restructuring proposal to FCC? It's in their hands. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Leo" wrote Power limits: Basic licence: 250W; Advanced licence: 1KW. Industry Canada RIC-2, Article 10.2 states this: " The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced Qualifications is limited to a maximum transmitting power of: (a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 1,000 W to the anode or collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio frequency energy to the antenna; or (b) where expressed as radio-frequency output power measured across an impedance-matched load, (i) 2,250 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type of single sideband emission, or (ii) 750 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type of emission." |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... "Leo" wrote Power limits: Basic licence: 250W; Advanced licence: 1KW. Industry Canada RIC-2, Article 10.2 states this: " The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced Qualifications is limited to a maximum transmitting power of: (a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 1,000 W to the anode or collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio frequency energy to the antenna; or (b) where expressed as radio-frequency output power measured across an impedance-matched load, (i) 2,250 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type of single sideband emission, or (ii) 750 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type of emission." I notice that RIC-3 limits "Basic" licensees to 250W. |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:59:11 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote: "Leo" wrote Power limits: Basic licence: 250W; Advanced licence: 1KW. Industry Canada RIC-2, Article 10.2 states this: " The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced Qualifications is limited to a maximum transmitting power of: (a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 1,000 W to the anode or collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio frequency energy to the antenna; or (b) where expressed as radio-frequency output power measured across an impedance-matched load, (i) 2,250 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type of single sideband emission, or (ii) 750 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type of emission." That is the full version alright - which applies to our Advanced licence. I prefer to use the 'input to the final' limits myself, as they are easily calculated using the plate voltmeter and ammeter. RIC-2's wording is odd - 10.2 refers to the holder of 'both the Basic and Advanced" license. As you cannot hold the Advanced without first obtaining (and continuing to hold - you collect the whole set up here!) the Basic, these are therefore the limits for holders of the Advanced licence. The limits for those holding only the Basic licence are covered under 10.1: 10.1 Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic Qualification The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic Qualification is limited to a maximum transmitting power of: (a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 250 W to the anode or collector circuit of the transmitter stage that supplies radio frequency energy to the antenna; or (b) where expressed as radio-frequency output power measured across an impedance-matched load, (i) 560 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type of single sideband emission, or (ii) 190 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type of emission. I should have clarified that I was referring to 'input power' in my reply - my omission there! 73, Leo |
"Dee Flint" wrote And human nature being what it is, there needs to be some type of discipline on the bands as to what goes where. Sounds like an excerpt from a religious catechism! Is "human nature" different in the USA? For that matter, is "human nature" different between 1.8 and 2.0 MHz, where US hams themselves provide the "type of discipline" to sort things out without FCC micromanaging it? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
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. Pactor is already in the HF bands, it's a royal pain in the tush and the FCC will probably bring it's use under control based on all the griping about it. Considering the rapid pace of development work in the field of high-speed wireless comms I expect it'll become technically much easier as time goes on to get some form or another of wireless broadband hardware running in the HF ham bands. Which would immediately raise more hell on the bands than anything we've seen in the modern era. Which it hasn't and it won't because those modes are not allowed to happen under the current regs. So I disagree with your "unregulated equal opportunity mode playground" concept. The US is one of only a very few countries which has mandated "mode sub-bands". No counter, we've been very pointedly marching to our own drummer since 1776 and I sure hope we never become international sheep. We have a whole pile of sweeping "restructuring" schemes before the FCC and everybody is all atwitter over the minutia and their parochial hot buttons, etc. The usual. Lotta nonsense, I have yet to read one of 'em which if implemented wouldn't make conditions on the bands *worse* in some way or another than what we have now. The bands ain't broken, why are we so hell-bent on "fixing" something which ain't broke?? Bleh. =20 =20 73, de Hans, K0HB w3rv |
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 |
K=D8HB wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote And human nature being what it is, there needs to be some type of discipline on the bands as to what goes where. Sounds like an excerpt from a religious catechism! Is "human nature" different in the USA? For that matter, is "human natur= e" different between 1.8 and 2.0 MHz, where US hams themselves provide the "= type of discipline" to sort things out without FCC micromanaging it? The FCC dumped micromanaging 160 on the ARRL, less work and flak for the FCC. =20 73, de Hans, K0HB w3rv |
|
"KØHB" wrote in message nk.net... "Dee Flint" wrote And human nature being what it is, there needs to be some type of discipline on the bands as to what goes where. Sounds like an excerpt from a religious catechism! Is "human nature" different in the USA? For that matter, is "human nature" different between 1.8 and 2.0 MHz, where US hams themselves provide the "type of discipline" to sort things out without FCC micromanaging it? 73, de Hans, K0HB While human nature is the same, the higher number of hams means you will see more of it. 160 meters has the self limiting factor of the size of workable antennas. Many hams simply can manage to get anything reasonable in the air. And the European system of self imposed band plans doesn't work as well as you seem to think. Just listen to them during one of their European contests. They are supposed to follow the band plans but don't since the rules generally only suggest they follow the band plans rather than requiring them to do so. They are every bit as bad as the US hams. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
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 |
wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote And human nature being what it is, there needs to be some type of discipline on the bands as to what goes where. Sounds like an excerpt from a religious catechism! Is "human nature" different in the USA? For that matter, is "human nature" different between 1.8 and 2.0 MHz, where US hams themselves provide the "type of discipline" to sort things out without FCC micromanaging it? The FCC dumped micromanaging 160 on the ARRL, less work and flak for the FCC. 73, de Hans, K0HB w3rv The illegal and unethical relationship between FCC & ARRL is one point of several which will enable K1MAN to prevail over the FCC. |
wrote in message oups.com... KØHB 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. Pactor is already in the HF bands, it's a royal pain in the tush and the FCC will probably bring it's use under control based on all the griping about it. Considering the rapid pace of development work in the field of high-speed wireless comms I expect it'll become technically much easier as time goes on to get some form or another of wireless broadband hardware running in the HF ham bands. Which would immediately raise more hell on the bands than anything we've seen in the modern era. Which it hasn't and it won't because those modes are not allowed to happen under the current regs. So I disagree with your "unregulated equal opportunity mode playground" concept. The US is one of only a very few countries which has mandated "mode sub-bands". No counter, we've been very pointedly marching to our own drummer since 1776 and I sure hope we never become international sheep. We have a whole pile of sweeping "restructuring" schemes before the FCC and everybody is all atwitter over the minutia and their parochial hot buttons, etc. The usual. Lotta nonsense, I have yet to read one of 'em which if implemented wouldn't make conditions on the bands *worse* in some way or another than what we have now. The bands ain't broken, why are we so hell-bent on "fixing" something which ain't broke?? Bleh. 73, de Hans, K0HB w3rv Just because *you* cannot comprehend why, does not make it a bad idea. Your tunnel vision is hilarious. |
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 |
Ginger Raveir wrote: wrote in message oups.com... K=D8HB wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote And human nature being what it is, there needs to be some type of discipline on the bands as to what goes where. Sounds like an excerpt from a religious catechism! Is "human nature" different in the USA? For that matter, is "human nature" different between 1.8 and 2.0 MHz, where US hams themselves provide the "type of discipline" to sort things out without FCC micromanaging it? The FCC dumped micromanaging 160 on the ARRL, less work and flak for the FCC. 73, de Hans, K0HB w3rv The illegal and unethical relationship between FCC & ARRL is one point of several which will enable K1MAN to prevail over the FCC. Dearie I have yet to run into a Real Ham who could possibly give a rat's ass about the goofy flap over K1MAN. That "thread" is for you bottom echelon types to obsess upon. Enjoy but kindly if you please don't bore the rest of us with it. w3rv |
K=D8HB wrote:
Is "human nature" different in the USA? Probably not - but "culture" sure is! For that matter, is "human nature" different between 1.8 and 2.0 MHz, where US hams themselves provide the "type of discipline" to sort things out without FCC micromanaging it? There have already been problems on 160 because some folks won't follow the voluntary bandplan. Already been a proposal to FCC that would impose subbands-by-mode on 160. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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 Already been a proposal to FCC that would impose subbands-by-mode on 160. And, to their credit, the Commission declined to act on that frivolous proposal stating that we could work it out among ourselves. Seems we've done just that, and the 160M band is working just fine, letting dynamic market forces determine usage patterns. Sunuvagun! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
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 |
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." |
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 |
K=D8HB wrote:
wrote But most of us don't have antennas or amplifiers like yours, Hans. There's nothing uncommon about my stations. I respectfully submit that most US hams don't have antennas like yours, Hans. Nor a similar location. It makes more sense than a free-for-all. "Free-for-all" is an emotionally charged term, calculated to engender vis= ions of a street brawl. Maybe to you. Most of the worlds hams outside the US already enjoy the freedom to use the bands without government-mandated "segment by mode", a= nd I notice no such brawls taking place. Doesn't mean they don't happen, just that you don't hear them. Is the USA like the rest of the world in terms of culture? Number of hams? Enforcement of regulations? By and large, hams seem to be a cooperative and responsible population with a good record of self-regulation. As a group, yes. But in certain specific instances (like 75 meters) things are not so rosy. I thought the proposal authors stated that concept quite accurately: "We believe the ideal band plan is one where good judgment on the operato= r's part supports use of any mode and any frequency available within their li= cense class. Good judgment is centered on cooperative, flexible use of frequenc= ies, 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 enforc= ement. Sounds nice. Now tell it to those running robot pactor stations. Or K1MAN.. 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 wo= uld lead to greater band "loading" and improved utilization by allowing an op= erator to choose a clear spot on the dial across a greater frequency range. What amounts to "a clear spot on the dial" varies with mode. All I need for CW is a couple of hundred Hz. The folks running AM or hi-fi SSB need 10 to 20 times that much, and their receivers are (of necessity) much less selective. "Intentional interference with communications is a violation of the regul= ations, independent of the mode in use, and whether automatic, semi automatic, or manually keyed. Sanctions would continue to be available against delibera= te interference or problems involving technical signal purity, using volunte= er "official observer" type programs. If a documented problem remains chroni= c or unresolved, the intervention of federal authority would reinforce volunte= er OO in self-regulation efforts, as it does today. Yeah, sure. How is the recipient of interference supposed to identify the source? "Automatic or semi automatic data operation not copied by the human ear b= ecomes of particular concern under our proposal, since the activity would be unencumbered by subband. That alone makes it a bad idea. 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 activ= ities and avoiding interference to other communications. They can't even make that happen today. So we reward them by giving them the whole band to play in? Chronically failing to do so would remain an actionable violation under existing rules against deliber= ate interference, since it could be shown such judgment had not been exercise= d=2E *If* they can even be identified! "We contend that the goal of voluntary selection of operating frequencies= for improved spectrum use is best achieved through real-time assessment of va= riables 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. Sure they can, the authors of the proposal just don't want to. -- Let's get down to what this proposal is really all about: 1) More room for the 'phone folks/less for the CW & data folks 2) Less constraint on the robot-data-mode folks It's all gussied up with fancy, emotional verbiage like "real-time assessment of variables in propagation and radio traffic load" but the above two things are what it's really all about. What it also amounts to is *rewarding* the use of spectrally-inefficient modes. IOW, if the 'phone band is crowded, try CW, PSK31 or some other mode that doesn't need so much spectrum! "Additionally, contemporary technology offers interference protection at = the receiver to an extent not possible 60 years ago, when protection was impl= emented by regulatory mandate to divide "phone" and "code" activity. Technology a= nd patterns of use now encourage the more effective coordination that we pro= pose." So we all need new rigs with all the bells and whistles. The separation of modes is a lot older than 60 years ago, too. It derives from a whole bunch of reasons. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote Let's get down to what this proposal is really all about: 1) More room for the 'phone folks/less for the CW & data folks Unless I've missed something, that statement does not accurately reflect the thrust of the proposal. Yes, it would grant more spectrum to phone, equal to that now enjoyed by CW. No, it does not diminish the spectrum available to CW. No, it does not diminish the spectrum available to data -- in fact, it increases it to equal that now enjoyed by CW. 2) Less constraint on the robot-data-mode folks Yes, and less constraint to all other modes also. Sort of in the spirit of the upcoming holiday, it has a ring of freedom about it. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
wrote in message oups.com... Ginger Raveir wrote: wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote And human nature being what it is, there needs to be some type of discipline on the bands as to what goes where. Sounds like an excerpt from a religious catechism! Is "human nature" different in the USA? For that matter, is "human nature" different between 1.8 and 2.0 MHz, where US hams themselves provide the "type of discipline" to sort things out without FCC micromanaging it? The FCC dumped micromanaging 160 on the ARRL, less work and flak for the FCC. 73, de Hans, K0HB w3rv The illegal and unethical relationship between FCC & ARRL is one point of several which will enable K1MAN to prevail over the FCC. Dearie I have yet to run into a Real Ham who could possibly give a rat's ass about the goofy flap over K1MAN. That "thread" is for you bottom echelon types to obsess upon. Enjoy but kindly if you please don't bore the rest of us with it. w3rv Oh my, po wittle W3RV got upset. BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH When are you going to upgrade from that no-code tech license you have had for years? |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... wrote Already been a proposal to FCC that would impose subbands-by-mode on 160. And, to their credit, the Commission declined to act on that frivolous proposal stating that we could work it out among ourselves. Seems we've done just that, and the 160M band is working just fine, letting dynamic market forces determine usage patterns. Sunuvagun! 73, de Hans, K0HB The 160m band is becoming more popular with a.m. pirates. Last time I was in Cincinatti & Atlanta, I heard pirates in the 160m band broadcasting most of the night. |
KØHB wrote:
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. As Bill and Ted say "Be *Excellent* to each other"! 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. They're not kidding. Nothing is quite as much fun as a robot station opening up right on top of you. Nothing much to do but complain. Then wait the obligatory dogs life for anything to happen. *They* don't care about things now. I doubt it will get any better if the rules are just "play nice". 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. But they don't. 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. All we have to do is wait 15 years or so...... - Mike KB3EIA - |
KØHB wrote:
wrote Let's get down to what this proposal is really all about: 1) More room for the 'phone folks/less for the CW & data folks Unless I've missed something, that statement does not accurately reflect the thrust of the proposal. Yes, it would grant more spectrum to phone, equal to that now enjoyed by CW. No, it does not diminish the spectrum available to CW. No, it does not diminish the spectrum available to data -- in fact, it increases it to equal that now enjoyed by CW. 2) Less constraint on the robot-data-mode folks Yes, and less constraint to all other modes also. Sort of in the spirit of the upcoming holiday, it has a ring of freedom about it. So does freebanding and pirate stations.. ;^) |
"Mike Coslo" wrote So does freebanding and pirate stations.. ;^) I'll ignore that remark, because I suspect you're an educated man who understands the difference between freedom and anarchy. The proposal (have your read it?) places great emphasis on responsibility and accountability, the handmaidens of freedom. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
From: on Fri 1 Jul 2005 09:21
K=D8=88B wrote: wrote But most of us don't have antennas or amplifiers like yours, Hans. There's nothing uncommon about my stations. I respectfully submit that most US hams don't have antennas like yours, Hans. Nor a similar location. Tsk. Are you now whining over your LACK of antenna and space? It makes more sense than a free-for-all. "Free-for-all" is an emotionally charged term, calculated to engender vi= sions of a street brawl. Maybe to you. ...and to me and to any reader having English as a first language... 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. Doesn't mean they don't happen, just that you don't hear them. Is the USA like the rest of the world in terms of culture? Number of hams? Enforcement of regulations? A glimpse of xenophobia in PA? :-) Explain these alleged "free-for-alls" taking place in other countries. Do you have some recordings, in WAV form that all might hear as a result of your careful, ceaseless monitoring? By and large, hams seem to be a cooperative and responsible population with a good record of self-regulation. As a group, yes. But in certain specific instances (like 75 meters) things are not so rosy. Then what are YOU - as the monitoring raddio kopp of 34+ years licensing - DOING ABOUT IT? All anyone can see in here is your (seeming) never-ending WHINING about alleged bad operating practices on 'phone. I thought the proposal authors stated that concept quite accurately: "We believe the ideal band plan is one where good judgment on the operat= or's part supports use of any mode and any frequency available within their l= icense class. Good judgment is centered on cooperative, flexible use of frequen= cies, 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 enfor= cement. Sounds nice. Now tell it to those running robot pactor stations. Or K1MAN.. What have YOU done about "robot pactor stations?" What have YOU done about "K1MAN?" All anyone can see is your WHINING about "CW" should have it all. Guided by the use of good judgment, removal of artificial boundaries wou= ld encourage dynamic selection of frequency, affording an operator the best= chance to minimize compatibility issues with other modes and activities. This w= ould lead to greater band "loading" and improved utilization by allowing an o= perator to choose a clear spot on the dial across a greater frequency range. What amounts to "a clear spot on the dial" varies with mode. All I need for CW is a couple of hundred Hz. The folks running AM or hi-fi SSB need 10 to 20 times that much, and their receivers are (of necessity) much less selective. It would seem that Hans Brakob's proposal addressed ALL amateur radio in the USA...not those tiny few who were molded from the same casting as James Miccolis. "Intentional interference with communications is a violation of the regu= lations, independent of the mode in use, and whether automatic, semi automatic, or manually keyed. Sanctions would continue to be available against deliber= ate interference or problems involving technical signal purity, using volunt= eer "official observer" type programs. If a documented problem remains chron= ic or unresolved, the intervention of federal authority would reinforce volunt= eer OO in self-regulation efforts, as it does today. Yeah, sure. How is the recipient of interference supposed to identify the source? How do YOU "identify the source" NOW? "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. That alone makes it a bad idea. WHY? Explain. Show your work. 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 acti= vities and avoiding interference to other communications. They can't even make that happen today. So we reward them by giving them the whole band to play in? YOU already have the "whole band to play in." If, like your previous boasting, you can "work through" in the midst of QRM with your beloved "CW" and not be worried. Why are you whining about "rewards" for others? Chronically failing to do so would remain an actionable violation under existing rules against delibe= rate interference, since it could be shown such judgment had not been exercis= ed. *If* they can even be identified! You are unable to "identify" QRM YOU get? Tsk, tsk. All that amateur radio time as an extra, plus two degrees, and you can't figure it out? "We contend that the goal of voluntary selection of operating frequencie= s for improved spectrum use is best achieved through real-time assessment of v= ariables in propagation and radio traffic load. Efforts to improve spectrum use a= re currently constrained because these variables cannot be accommodated with fulltime, rigidly defined sub-bands. Sure they can, the authors of the proposal just don't want to. Tsk. Jimmie is angry because he can't have HIS special place in the spectrum sandbox! -- Let's get down to what this proposal is really all about: Yeah! It's all about DISPLEASING Jimmie! 1) More room for the 'phone folks/less for the CW & data folks The "room" for "CW folks" was NOT shrunk. Allowing more elbow room for Voice is a "crime?" 2) Less constraint on the robot-data-mode folks Let NO ONE disturb the HUMAN ROBOT MODE "CW" ops! It's all gussied up with fancy, emotional verbiage like "real-time assessment of variables in propagation and radio traffic load" but the above two things are what it's really all about. Oooooo! "Gussied up!" How terrible! :-) What it also amounts to is *rewarding* the use of spectrally-inefficient modes. IOW, if the 'phone band is crowded, try CW, PSK31 or some other mode that doesn't need so much spectrum! "The World According to Gorp." :-) Gorp. Jimmie is on the Trail, mixing metaphors in the bag, raisin the dead with salty peanuts. The longer-for-the-past should realize that the FIRST "CW" Spark, had all the bandwidth of nearly an entire band... :-) "Additionally, contemporary technology offers interference protection at= the receiver to an extent not possible 60 years ago, when protection was imp= lemented by regulatory mandate to divide "phone" and "code" activity. Technology = and patterns of use now encourage the more effective coordination that we pr= opose." So we all need new rigs with all the bells and whistles. Tsk. You only need to polish your bells and clean your whistles...and quit blowing that dirty whistle...your pea is bobbling and giving you a distorted tone. YOU are the double-degreed engineer in here...YOU give the "amateur community" the guidance it needs in technology. YOU said you were a "radio manufacturer," let's see YOU produce the adapter kits...? The separation of modes is a lot older than 60 years ago, too. It derives from a whole bunch of reasons. List those "reasons." Show your work. The "separation of modes" is no older than 71 years, the creation of the FCC by the Communications Act of 1934. Other than making HF amateur radio solely "CW" (for your personal benefit and "reward") tell all what YOU would propose for the OTHERS of the FUTURE? dot dot |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com