Definitely Not Qualified
 

More Real Estate Follies
 

wrote

OK, add a new sentence to §97.101(a) so it reads as follows:

(a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur
station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and
good amateur practice. Nonconformance with IARU bandplan
guidance is specifically considered a violation of this paragraph.


What that does is to turn what are now voluntary bandplans
into the rule of law.

At the same time ridding us of the convolutions, mindless restrictions, and
inflexibilites of §97.305.

The bandplans would be under OUR (the users) control, not some dis-interested
bureacrat. Changes could happen dynamically as we needed them, not sit on a
backburner until some bureacrat retired and the new guy sorted through his
"pending" tray.

OTOH, that approach rewards those who use the most spectrum,
rather than those who use the spectrum the most efficiently.

Measured how? If you measure only in terms of raw bandwidth consumption, then
CW or PSK probably wins. If you measure in terms of payload throughput-per-Hz
then then something like Q15x25 is dramatically more efficient.

Which begs the point anyhow, because in a service which is chartered with a
mission of experimentation and "contribute to the advancement of the radio art",
bandwidth efficiency is only a single measure of value.

Which means only 180 QSOs in the entire 500 kHz. And where do the
digital folks go?

I was using a simplified model to illustrate a point.

But simply tossing out the regulations isn't the answer.

I'm not proposing "tossing out the regulations". I'm suggesting changing the
regulations to make them more dynamic and responsive to real-user needs.
"User-agreed bandplan with teeth" replaces the unweildy/inflexible dinosaur of
§97.305.


The widening variety of modes and operating methods means
we need more rules, not less.....

Spoken like a good bureaucrat! Are you a disciple of Bob Wexelbaum?

73, de Hans, K0HB

What Really Happened in 1936
 

wrote


160 was popular with 'phone men, but a decent antenna
for that band was/is enormous and BCI could be a real devil.


Phone women too. My Mom's xmtr was hardwired for160 (no plug-ins).


Put 4600 hams (10% of the total licensees) on the air at once and each
would less than 250 cycles. The bands WERE approaching saturation.


Only theoretically. Geographic sharing isn't a post-war invention.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

More Real Estate Follies
 

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote

OK, add a new sentence to §97.101(a) so it reads as follows:

(a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur
station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and
good amateur practice. Nonconformance with IARU bandplan
guidance is specifically considered a violation of this
paragraph.


What that does is to turn what are now voluntary bandplans
into the rule of law.

At the same time ridding us of the convolutions, mindless restrictions,
and inflexibilites of §97.305.

The bandplans would be under OUR (the users) control, not some
dis-interested bureacrat. Changes could happen dynamically as we needed
them, not sit on a backburner until some bureacrat retired and the new guy
sorted through his "pending" tray.


But who will have the authority to set OUR bandplan?? Which group of users
will be chartered with that task? What if I don't belong to that group? Or
what if I find it objectionable?

That's what will be the real problem. As so many have pointed out, there is
no organization to which the majority of hams belongs, at least in this
country. While the ARRL is the largest, the majority of the ham population
does NOT belong to it and will likely scream bloody murder if they were to
get to establish the band plan.

You mention the IARU but that won't work right now either. We have some
additional frequencies that they do not. Tasking them with planning is not
appropriate for frequencies used only by a single country or very small
group of countries. Then of course there is the sovereignty issue. Some
countries, including the US, probably will not want to give them that much
power.

Finally, having the IARU (or any other body) designate a mandatory band plan
goes against the principle of "free market" for dynamic allocation of the
frequencies. A group would have to meet and reallocate as needed. Also the
flexibility that groups such as contestors currently have would be
diminished. Let's just deal with the US allocations on say 40m here. Right
now, the contestors can and do use 7.150 to 7.300 for major contests,
ignoring the "band plan" allotment for SSTV. For the short time span of the
major contest, that extra space is significant. But with a mandatory band
plan, they couldn't do that. Unless the committee met before the contest
and OK'd it or had so many exceptions to the plan that it would become a
nightmare. The situation gets worse for the cw/digital section.

If you think a planning group could keep up, just look at the band plans
currently published on the ARRL web site. They are out of step with the
current actual digital operating frequencies in some cases.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

What Really Happened in 1936
 

KØHB wrote:
wrote

160 was popular with 'phone men, but a decent antenna
for that band was/is enormous and BCI could be a real devil.

Phone women too. My Mom's xmtr was hardwired for160 (no plug-ins).

MY BAD!!!

Should read "'phone hams"!

Sidebar point: In those days, amateur HF 'phone operation was limited
to
160, 75, 20 and 10 meters. Not only were the subbands allocated to
'phone
narrower than today, but use of 75 and 20 meter 'phone required a Class
A
license. 160 and 10 meters became very popular 'phone bands because
all license classes could operate 'phone there.

Put 4600 hams (10% of the total licensees) on the air at once and each
would less than 250 cycles. The bands WERE approaching saturation.

Only theoretically. Geographic sharing isn't a post-war invention.

True enough.

However the point is still valid - the number of QSOs that the 1930s
HF amateur bands and equipment could handle was much less than today.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Definitely Not Qualified
 

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 10, 1:14 pm
wrote:
From: on Dec 9, 6:28 pm
wrote:
wrote:

Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"

Brian,

You have written that phrase as a direct quote, and attributed it to
me.

Where have I written that I 'served in other ways'?

So you haven't "served in other ways?"

Jim? Hello?

September 24, 2004; January 13, February 10, May 25 2005. shrug

Len, thanks for serving up the specific dates of his attempts to claim
some kind of honors, but he's just not worth my time.

Agreed. Jimmie MUST have quotes that are EXACT and WORD-FOR-
WORD. Amazing.

I'm reminded of having been called a "liar" because I said that Michael
Deignan had 12 amateur radio licenses. I was wrong. Michael Deignan's
wife had one of them, at same address (at that time). Mike only had
11. I believe Riley then whittled it down to 3. But I'm a "liar."
Hi! Hi, hi!!! Gotta love these guys.

Len and Brian,

If you are going to give direct quotes of what someone allegedly wrote,
you
should use the exact words they wrote. That's what "direct quote"
means.

Jim, please feel free to provide a direct quote.

He can't understand that other people read
the entirety of his boasting claims of doing more than others
and doing it oh-so-much-better.

The fact is that you were both shown to be wrong and now you're
trying to tapdance away from the fact that you misguoted me.

Tapdance? Jim, please feel free to provide a direct quote. Really.

Or even better, you could explain how one "serves in other ways."

Real estate chatter snipped.

Definitely Not Qualified
 

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 9, 6:28 pm

wrote:
wrote:

Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"

Brian,

You have written that phrase as a direct quote, and attributed it to
me.

Where have I written that I 'served in other ways'?

So you haven't "served in other ways?"

September 24, 2004;

Nope. I did not write that I "served in other ways" on that date.

"Nope."

January 13, February 10, May 25 2005.

Nope, nope, and nope again. I did not write that I
"served in other ways" on any of those dates either.

"Nope, nope, and nope again."

You're starting to sound like Steve. Everyone else gets everything
wrong.

Len, if you had actually *read* what I wrote on those
days, you'd know that.

What I have written is a question for you and others.

Can you answer your own question?

Here it is again:

Is service in the military the only way a citizen can
serve our country? Or are there other ways?

A rhetorical question? You wanted an answer?

Or were you implying that you "served in other ways?"

Can you answer your own question, or are you going to leave it up to us
Veterans of low-intelligence who got duped by "The Man" to act as
cannon fodder in exchange for a chance at an education?

What Really Happened in 1936
 

wrote:
Morse Code test speeds for an amateur license were
increased from 10 wpm to 13 wpm, circa 1936, at the
request of the ARRL president in a letter to the FCC.
See Page 82 of "Fifty Years of ARRL" -- that's no
deep dark secret.

But it's not the whole story.

The request was for an increase from 10 wpm to
12-1/2 wpm. The FCC "rounded up" to 13 wpm
on their own.

Those dirty, rotten, G-Men.

The same letter requested more comprehensive
WRITTEN exams,
updated to the current technology then used by hams.
This was also granted by the FCC. There were only
three classes of license at the time, and all required
the same code speed.

The FCC of the 30's appeared to be pushovers. Wonder who's kid was
appointed Chief those days?

The code speed increase is often remembered. The
written test improvement is rarely if ever
remembered.

This whole situation is frequently "spin doctored"
by those who say the code test speed was
raised to limit the number of amateurs.

And you, of course, have the one truth, the only truth, so help you
Hiram.

More Real Estate Follies
 

"Dee Flint" wrote

That's what will be the real problem. As so many have pointed out, there is
no organization to which the majority of hams belongs, at least in this
country. While the ARRL is the largest, the majority of the ham population
does NOT belong to it and will likely scream bloody murder if they were to get
to establish the band plan.


That's what makes the IARU an attractive vehicle. While no individual pays
memberships dues in IARU, all hams are defacto members of IARU because each
country has a representative who represents ALL hams in their jurisdiction
independent of whether they are members of the national "club" like ARRL, RAC,
RSGB, DARC, JARL, or whatever.


You mention the IARU but that won't work right now either. We have some
additional frequencies that they do not. Tasking them with planning is not
appropriate for frequencies used only by a single country or very small group
of countries. Then of course there is the sovereignty issue. Some countries,
including the US, probably will not want to give them that much power.


Huh?

IARU is not a government agency. It is us, the hams of the world, totally
independent of national governments and independent of international
organizations like ITU or CEPT. Who better than the hams to decide how
ham frequencies should be used? Are we so conditioned to "big government"
dependency that (within our allocations) we need disinvolved government
bureaucrats to make decisions that much more logically belong to the actual
affected users?

I agree with you that some frequencies are better planned at a more local level
when those plans have no global implications. IARU is already regionally
localized into Region I, II, and III, and that localization makes perfect sense
for shared MF/HF bands. Further localization for "national only" bands, and for
V/UHF allocations is a natural extension of the idea. An example of that model
is the state/regional-localized V/UHF NFCC bandplanning which already operates
independently of the FCC and ARRL in the US.

Finally, having the IARU (or any other body) designate a mandatory band plan
goes against the principle of "free market" for dynamic allocation of the
frequencies.

To the extent that the band plan would not be dynamic on a minute-to-minute
schedule, you are correct. But it certainly be more dynamic and responsive that
the current generation-to-generation schedule of §97.305.

A group would have to meet and reallocate as needed.

In the 1930's that certainly would have been an impediment. But 75 years later
in 2005, give me a list of 100 IARU representatives and within the next hour I
can establish a secure and private "meeting room" on the internet where they can
hold their allocation meetings, hammer out their agreements, and publish the
bandplan on a global basis before halftime of Monday Night Football.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Definitely Not Qualified
 

From: on Dec 11, 10:06 am

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 10, 1:14 pm
wrote:
From: on Dec 9, 6:28 pm
wrote:
wrote:

Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"

Brian,

You have written that phrase as a direct quote, and attributed it to
me.

Where have I written that I 'served in other ways'?

So you haven't "served in other ways?"

Jim? Hello?

I hear nothing from him on "serving."

Could be he fired up his personal "wayback machine" and went back
to 1936 to review the ARRL political situation on morris goad
testing rates. I think that was before "Farnsworth" rates were
introduced.

In 1936 I was 3 to 4 years old. Jimmie didn't exist anywhere
close to zygote stage yet, wouldn't be born for 19 or so years.


September 24, 2004; January 13, February 10, May 25 2005. shrug

Len, thanks for serving up the specific dates of his attempts to claim
some kind of honors, but he's just not worth my time.

Agreed. Jimmie MUST have quotes that are EXACT and WORD-FOR-
WORD. Amazing.

I'm reminded of having been called a "liar" because I said that Michael
Deignan had 12 amateur radio licenses. I was wrong. Michael Deignan's
wife had one of them, at same address (at that time). Mike only had
11. I believe Riley then whittled it down to 3. But I'm a "liar."
Hi! Hi, hi!!! Gotta love these guys.

Heh heh, that "love" is "tough." :-)

Yeah, I remember Mikey D's little missives in here, his
adventures with the (?) "radio commandos." Mikey ain't got
them dozen club calls no more. How about that?

Brian, here's a KEEPER for an EXACT QUOTE. On December 10, 2005,
Jimmie write the following:

"The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs."

Exact, word for word. :-)


Len and Brian,

If you are going to give direct quotes of what someone allegedly wrote, you
should use the exact words they wrote. That's what "direct quote" means.

Jim, please feel free to provide a direct quote.

Well, I think I obliged Jimmie with the destined-to-become-classic
faux pas of his. Here it is again (from 10 Dec 05):

"The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs."


He can't understand that other people read
the entirety of his boasting claims of doing more than others
and doing it oh-so-much-better.

The fact is that you were both shown to be wrong and now you're
trying to tapdance away from the fact that you misguoted me.

Tapdance? Jim, please feel free to provide a direct quote. Really.

Can we have some accompanyment to the time-steps? :-)

Guess I'll have to drive over to one of the "dancer's"
cobbler shops in town and get some tap shoes. One guy
claims to have done it on court shoes (a lot more
comfortable than the leather-top jobbies). Good trick
if they last...

Here's a DIRECT QUOTE again (from Jimmie on 10 Dec 05):

"The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs."



Or even better, you could explain how one "serves in other ways."

Always from the right of the patron? The lady first?

Gosh, we may have to get Jimmie an "Etty-Kit" so he can serve
properly and correctly!


Real estate chatter snipped.

Pity that. Jimmie KNOWS ALL ABOUT the "basis and purpose" of
local zoning ordinances. We can say nothing about zoning
until Jimmie gets us all "zoned" out of this world and into
another realm of existance. Twilight Zone?