|
More Real Estate Follies
KØHB wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans forHF instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal throughout the entire band. I'm an enthusiastic user of CW, but I fully support such a plan. Let "market forces" and usage-centric gentlemens agreements determine band usage. Morse users currently can use that mode on literally all the amateur-allocated frequencies with the exception of the five channels on 5Mhz. And 220 FWTW. On a "larger" CW contest weekend they could (perfectly legally) use any frequency (that was not occupied) for CW contesting. Why should CW be alone in such a generous allocation? 73, de Hans, K0HB Now that's a finely crafted troll! |
Definitely Not Qualified
|
More Real Estate Follies
Paul Runninghorse Vigil
Senior Consultant 30 Years Experienced In Creative Real Estate Buying or Selling and Creative Real Estate Financing. Homes, Land, Hotels, Commercial, Trust Deeds and Real Estate Investigations. FREE Telephone Consultation Ph # 303-284-0636 Fax 303-284-0974 Was a Broker, Realtor and Owner Operator of Real Estate Brokerages and Mortgage Companies. * Refer-A-Friend www.capitalvigilfundingdept.com |
More Real Estate Follies
Paul Runninghorse Vigil
Senior Consultant 30 Years Experienced In Creative Real Estate Buying or Selling and Creative Real Estate Financing. Homes, Land, Hotels, Commercial, Trust Deeds and Real Estate Investigations. FREE Telephone Consultation Ph # 303-284-0636 Fax 303-284-0974 Was a Broker, Realtor and Owner Operator of Real Estate Brokerages and Mortgage Companies. * Refer-A-Friend www.capitalvigilfundingdept.com |
Definitely Not Qualified
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; January 13, February 10, May 25 2005. shrug All my postings to newsgroups are in Google. Please provide a link to the posting(s) where I wrote what you claim I wrote. At's OK. I'll take your word for it that not only haven't you served, but that you haven't "served in other ways." Jimmie "serves" ceasar salads at the O-club on Satiddy nights. [hail ceasar...] Jimmie loves to re-argue, re-argue, re-argue old, old postings' content, perhaps hoping to THIS TIME being able to win one...:-) Jimmie be the "silent majority" type of wannabe...or maybe a Better-Than? He is "superior" and without fault in whatever he does. Just ask him and he will confirm that. Give Jimmie some slack(s). He might be organizing a charity group in memory of fallen hippie linemen who tye-dyed on active duty in the 60s? |
More Real Estate Follies
wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "KØHB" wrote in message k.net... wrote Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code. I haven't seen anyone, licensed or not, propose a change in the regulations that would affect my use of Morse code. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans for HF instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal throughout the entire band. That could impact your use of Morse during the larger voice contests. Couldn't possibly. CW always gets through. With the number of hams in this country that could be a mess. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the number of people holding a license. ________________________________________________ End Quote No that was never one of the original reasons to test for Morse. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Definitely Not Qualified
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; 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. All my postings to newsgroups are in Google. Please provide a link to the posting(s) where I wrote what you claim I wrote. At's OK. I'll take your word for it that not only haven't you served, but that you haven't "served in other ways." Jimmie "serves" ceasar salads at the O-club on Satiddy nights. [hail ceasar...] He reminds me of Madeliene Al(most)bright saying that America no longer needs the "Marine Culture." Woefully uninformed. She's not worthy to preside over a barrel-burning detail for our deployed troops. Jimmie loves to re-argue, re-argue, re-argue old, old postings' content, perhaps hoping to THIS TIME being able to win one...:-) Hmmmm? OK, if he wants to reargue what he says he didn't say... Jimmie be the "silent majority" type of wannabe...or maybe a Better-Than? He is "superior" and without fault in whatever he does. Just ask him and he will confirm that. It's funny. A few years ago, I was surrounded by people serving in the military, and it almost appeared that everyone did. Most of us had been to the desert, to Honduras, to Korea, etc, etc, etc. Now that I'm out here with the "civils," its eye-opening and shocking. Give Jimmie some slack(s). He might be organizing a charity group in memory of fallen hippie linemen who tye-dyed on active duty in the 60s? If Jim want's to make some legitimate claim to how he served, then he can make it. If not then he can go to his grave regretting how he misspent his youth or how he "served in other ways" that are the equivalent of military service in his mind. Sad. |
More Real Estate Follies
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "KØHB" wrote in message k.net... wrote Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code. I haven't seen anyone, licensed or not, propose a change in the regulations that would affect my use of Morse code. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans forHF instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal throughout the entire band. That could impact your use of Morse during the larger voice contests. Couldn't possibly. CW always gets through. With the number of hams in this country that could be a mess. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the number of people holding a license. ________________________________________________ End Quote No that was never one of the original reasons to test for Morse. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Yes, it was. See Google. |
More Real Estate Follies
wrote Why should CW be alone in such a generous allocation? 73, de Hans, K0HB Now that's a finely crafted troll! Not a troll at all, Brian. I think it's a fair question. Morse is allowed on virtually all amateur frequencies except 219MHz and 5MHz allocations. Being a CW operator, quite frankly I'm happy about the flexibility that gives me. But it's a mystery to me why all modes aren't treated in this generous manner, and why other CW operators seem so firmly opposed to the Canadian/European "market forces" model of frequency sharing. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
Definitely Not Qualified
|
More Real Estate Follies
KØHB wrote:
Being a CW operator, quite frankly I'm happy about the flexibility that gives me. But it's a mystery to me why all modes aren't treated in this generous manner, and why other CW operators seem so firmly opposed to the Canadian/European "market forces" model of frequency sharing. Has to do with the compatibility of modes, Hans. Not all modes share bandspace equally well. Not all operators follow the bandplans, either. From what I read, the folks in Region 1 are already beginning to notice problems being caused by the "market forces" (loudest signal wins) model of frequency "sharing". A lot of Region 1 hams aren't so happy with how it's working out in real life. --- One reason for the separation of 'phone and Morse/digital is to maximize the utilization of the available bandwidth. Say you have a band like 80/75 meters. 500 kHz of bandspace. If we allow 2.5 kHz for each SSB QSO and 250 Hz for each CW/digital QSO, (average) it's clear that the band could theoretically support 200 simultaneous SSB QSOs or 2000 simultaneous CW/digital QSOs. Allowing all modes everywhere rewards the modes that use the most bandwidth at the expense of those that use the least. --- Perhaps the biggest fear many have is the "one way" nature of a lot of FCC rules changes. Suppose we do go to "all bands everywhere/voluntary bandplans" and the result is a messy nightmare of QRM. Will FCC reimpose the old rules? Very doubtful, given the history of the past 20-30 years. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
More "Raped an Old Friend" Follies
K4YZ wrote: WHOA! There's the pot calling the kettle black! Whoa! Steve writes "raped an old friend" and thinks it's OK. |
More Real Estate Follies
wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: Being a CW operator, quite frankly I'm happy about the flexibility that gives me. But it's a mystery to me why all modes aren't treated in this generous manner, and why other CW operators seem so firmly opposed to the Canadian/European "market forces" model of frequency sharing. Has to do with the compatibility of modes, Hans. Not all mode share bandspace equally well. That's a non-sequiter, Jim. That's why there are bandplans. IARU has been in the bandplanning business mostly everywhere except in the USA for about 75 years. As new modes gain favor (market dynamics change) they reach agreement in their bandplans to accomodate the proportions of users of the various modes. Not all operators follow the bandplans, either. Really? Well then I guess Riley will just have to invoke the "good amateur practice" rule..... oh, never mind, he's already doing that. Not good enough for you..... 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. From what I read, the folks in Region 1 are already beginning to notice problems being caused by the "market forces" (loudest signal wins) model of frequency "sharing". A lot of Region 1 hams aren't so happy with how it's working out in real life. "Already"? After 75 years? How many is "a lot"? 50? 50,000? --- One reason for the separation of 'phone and Morse/digital is to maximize the utilization of the available bandwidth. Say you have a band like 80/75 meters. 500 kHz of bandspace. If we allow 2.5 kHz for each SSB QSO and 250 Hz for each CW/digital QSO, (average) it's clear that the band could theoretically support 200 simultaneous SSB QSOs or 2000 simultaneous CW/digital QSOs. Be careful what you wish for. Using that logic, it follows that fair frequency management techniques would allow for an equal number of CW and Phone contacts since the number of regular users is about equal, and CW would lose some man-sized chunks of spectrum. The theoretical "even number" division of this 500kHz band would work out to 90 CW (250 Hz) and 90 SSB (2500 Hz) QSO's. The CW allocation would be 3500-3522.5kHz, and SSB would have the remainder of the band. Sorry, but I can't live with that! Neither should we live with the current plan where CW has a theoretical 2000-QSO band, and SSB is limited to a theoretical limit of just 100 QSO's on that same band. If the number of CW users is roughly equal to the number of SSB users, why does CW now enjoy a 20-1 advantage in effective frequency space (measured in simultaneous QSO's)? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Definitely Not Qualified
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?" 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. 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. At the very same time he tries to dump on everyone who disagrees with HIM, be they veterans or not. "Patriotism?" Hardly. All my postings to newsgroups are in Google. Please provide a link to the posting(s) where I wrote what you claim I wrote. At's OK. I'll take your word for it that not only haven't you served, but that you haven't "served in other ways." Jimmie "serves" ceasar salads at the O-club on Satiddy nights. [hail ceasar...] He reminds me of Madeliene Al(most)bright saying that America no longer needs the "Marine Culture." Woefully uninformed. She's not worthy to preside over a barrel-burning detail for our deployed troops. Neither is Jimmie. Maddie WAS Secretary of State at one time, though. Wonder if Jimmie could wear a nice dress and heels as Condi's replacement? Jimmie loves to re-argue, re-argue, re-argue old, old postings' content, perhaps hoping to THIS TIME being able to win one...:-) Hmmmm? OK, if he wants to reargue what he says he didn't say... Brian, any quote attributed to him MUST be WORD-FOR-WORD or "he never said any such thing." He changes his boundary conditions to put himself in the "right" anywhichwayhecan. Jimmie be the "silent majority" type of wannabe...or maybe a Better-Than? He is "superior" and without fault in whatever he does. Just ask him and he will confirm that. It's funny. A few years ago, I was surrounded by people serving in the military, and it almost appeared that everyone did. Most of us had been to the desert, to Honduras, to Korea, etc, etc, etc. Now that I'm out here with the "civils," its eye-opening and shocking. I understand. Been there, done that. Of course, I did it far further back than most, but I never forgot it. A great problem with these "civils" is that, not being anywhere close to danger themselves, everything military is like a movie or TV show. All the actors come alive after the show is over and go on to play other parts in other shows later. Ain't so in the military. Once dead, completely dead. No SAG or SEG rules about resurrection for them. The military's environment is not a comfortable living room or an air conditioned theater. Jimmie said "I was 'safe' in Tokyo." The Russkies "couldn't reach us with aircraft" or some dumb thing like that. Had he seen some rather elaborate plans for shelters and op-orders on what to do when the crap entered the cyclone, he would have probably complained about excess spending or equivalent. In the 1950s the Russkies DID have various delivery systems for special weapons. Jimmie doesn't want to believe that. Being safe in his crib in the yew-knighted-states, nobody was going to nuke HIM! :-) Ergo, nobody was going to nuke anyone. He went out of his way trying to barf on those of us who were OUT THERE one helluvalot closer to danger than HE ever was. Be that as it may, most of the vets I've talked to who served off-shore were both cognizant of danger close-at-hand but also optimistic as to their survival. The vast majority of us survived and came back to the "civils," uncivil though some of them were. My outfit did communications. We did it well, got two Presidential Unit Citations for it while I was there. We did communications of the most direct means possible then, didn't play at it as some amateur did with the "NTS" and their "official radiograms." At the same time we had to keep up with ordinary soldiering skills, summed up by the primary mission phrase "...to close with, and destroy, the enemy." I like to think that the guys in my outfit could, if needs be, carry out their primary mission as soldiers. None of us wanted any "test" of whether or not we were. I thank God there wasn't any. Braggarts and hero-wannabes say the opposite, that they could/did "fight" anyone (with the jaw-bone of an ass...their own). See hero of seven hostile actions, Dudly the Imposter. Give Jimmie some slack(s). He might be organizing a charity group in memory of fallen hippie linemen who tye-dyed on active duty in the 60s? If Jim want's to make some legitimate claim to how he served, then he can make it. Hmphhh...the O-clubs still need waiters. Burger King still needs servers. If not then he can go to his grave regretting how he misspent his youth or how he "served in other ways" that are the equivalent of military service in his mind. Sad. He knows no better. He will never allow himself to be with fault. Ergo, he is always right...others are always "wrong" if they disagree with him. Lately, Jimmie has become an "expert" on regional real estate and urban zoning. He "knows exactly" all about every situation involving those two areas. He made some weird analogies to opinions I've expressed, analogies that have NO relationship whatsoever. That was all geared to make me look "bad," essential to make him "look good" and be without fault. It didn't work, was incorrect...but Jimmie thinks it did and Jimmie is the only one that counts. shrug |
More Real Estate Follies
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "KØHB" wrote in message k.net... wrote Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code. I haven't seen anyone, licensed or not, propose a change in the regulations that would affect my use of Morse code. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans forHF instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal throughout the entire band. That could impact your use of Morse during the larger voice contests. Couldn't possibly. CW always gets through. With the number of hams in this country that could be a mess. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the number of people holding a license. ________________________________________________ End Quote No that was never one of the original reasons to test for Morse. become better infromed as to history Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
More Real Estate Follies
wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "KØHB" wrote in message k.net... wrote Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code. I haven't seen anyone, licensed or not, propose a change in the regulations that would affect my use of Morse code. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans for HF instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal throughout the entire band. That could impact your use of Morse during the larger voice contests. Couldn't possibly. CW always gets through. With the number of hams in this country that could be a mess. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the number of people holding a license. ________________________________________________ End Quote No that was never one of the original reasons to test for Morse. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Yes, it was. See Google. __________________________________________________ _ End Quote Google is not necessarily a reliable historical source, especially for things that far in the past. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
More Real Estate Follies
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message oups.com... cut With the number of hams in this country that could be a mess. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the number of people holding a license. ________________________________________________ End Quote No that was never one of the original reasons to test for Morse. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Yes, it was. See Google. __________________________________________________ _ End Quote Google is not necessarily a reliable historical source, especially for things that far in the past. Google may well have the answers here but they exist none the less and can be found by anyone that is not so blind as not be willing to risk there preconceived notions Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
More Real Estate Follies
KØHB wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: Being a CW operator, quite frankly I'm happy about the flexibility that gives me. But it's a mystery to me why all modes aren't treated in this generous manner, and why other CW operators seem so firmly opposed to the Canadian/European "market forces" model of frequency sharing. Has to do with the compatibility of modes, Hans. Not all mode share bandspace equally well. That's a non-sequiter, Jim. I don't think so. That's why there are bandplans. IARU has been in the bandplanning business mostly everywhere except in the USA for about 75 years. As new modes gain favor (market dynamics change) they reach agreement in their bandplans to accomodate the proportions of users of the various modes. Supposedly, anyway. One problem with IARU bandplans is that the ham bands in other countries aren't all the same as they are here. Not all operators follow the bandplans, either. Really? Well then I guess Riley will just have to invoke the "good amateur practice" rule..... oh, never mind, he's already doing that. Not good enough for you..... 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. From what I read, the folks in Region 1 are already beginning to notice problems being caused by the "market forces" (loudest signal wins) model of frequency "sharing". A lot of Region 1 hams aren't so happy with how it's working out in real life. "Already"? After 75 years? The Region 1 folks haven't always had the free-for-all rules they mostly have now. Neither has Canada. --- One reason for the separation of 'phone and Morse/digital is to maximize the utilization of the available bandwidth. Say you have a band like 80/75 meters. 500 kHz of bandspace. If we allow 2.5 kHz for each SSB QSO and 250 Hz for each CW/digital QSO, (average) it's clear that the band could theoretically support 200 simultaneous SSB QSOs or 2000 simultaneous CW/digital QSOs. Be careful what you wish for. Using that logic, it follows that fair frequency management techniques would allow for an equal number of CW and Phone contacts since the number of regular users is about equal, and CW would lose some man-sized chunks of spectrum. If you look at it that way, maybe. OTOH, that approach rewards those who use the most spectrum, rather than those who use the spectrum the most efficiently. The theoretical "even number" division of this 500kHz band would work out to 90 CW (250 Hz) and 90 SSB (2500 Hz) QSO's. Which means only 180 QSOs in the entire 500 kHz. And where do the digital folks go? The CW allocation would be 3500-3522.5kHz, and SSB would have the remainder of the band. Sorry, but I can't live with that! Why not? You're the one pushing "market forces", Hans. What will you do when the bandplan says that's what CW gets? Neither should we live with the current plan where CW has a theoretical 2000-QSO band, and SSB is limitedto a theoretical limit of just 100 QSO's on that same band. Agreed! But simply tossing out the regulations isn't the answer. If the number of CW users is roughly equal to the number of SSB users, why does CW now enjoy a 20-1 advantage in effective frequency space (measured in simultaneous QSO's)? Old rules, old ideas. I see no mention of digital. The future is probably going to be very different. For one thing, we will soon have many hams on HF who don't know any Morse Code at all. We also have, already, a growing number using an increasing variety of "digital" modes which cannot be decoded without special equipment (usually a computer) and where the operator looks at a visual display rather than listening to the band. There are also "semi-automatic" and "robot" digital stations with no operator at all. How does a Morse Code station, or an SSB station, tell a digital station that the digital station is causing interference - or even identify the callsign of the digital station? That's just one problem. The widening variety of modes and operating methods means we need more rules, not less (unfortunately). I suggest that the bands be carved up into subbands-by-mode - CW only, narrow digital, wide/auto digital, analog voice. The ARRL "subbands by bandwidth" proposal tries to address the problem but it's got too many flaws. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
What Really Happened in 1936
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. 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 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. For example, it was claimed by WA6VSE (now WK3C) back in 1999 that: "The ARRL wanted faster code tests PURELY as a means of slowing growth in the amateur ranks, contending that (with about 30,000 hams at the time) "the bands are approaching saturation" ... clearly a ridiculous claim." The saturation thing was a very realistic claim. And there were 46,000 US hams, not 30,000. Here's "the rest of the story": The ham bands of the time consisted of 160, 80, 40, 20, 10, 5, 2-1/2 and 1-1/4 meters. Nothing else. The bands below (shorter in wavelength) than 20 meters were sparsely populated by hams, due to the difficulty of getting simple 1930s equipment to work at all on such frequencies, and the limited results that could be expected. 160 was popular with 'phone men, but a decent antenna for that band was/is enormous and BCI could be a real devil. 10 was not as popular because of its varying propagation and equipment difficulties. So most hams were on 80, 40, and 20, using simple, Depression era stations. A "pair of tens and a three tube blooper" (push pull self-controlled oscillator transmitter and regenerative receiver) was typical, and many hams did not even have that. Home-made stations were common - a station that had no home-brew was very rare. Yes, crystal controlled, multistage transmitters and single signal superhet receivers were in use, but only by a few wealthy hams. There were even some amateurs using SSB voice, but the cost and complexity of such a station kept their numbers to a handful. Those hams who did use voice were almost all using double-sideband- with-carrier AM, and took up 6 to 10 kc of the band each. In practice, ham QSOs of the day rarely had both stations on the same frequency. Many of the simple transmitters of the 1930s were not designed for rapid QSY, and straying outside the band was too easy. Crystal controlled operation was even less flexible. So most QSOs used up two frequencies - what would be called "split" operation today. This meant that the QRM was twice as bad as if everyone had "zero beat" QSOs. In order to make contacts under such conditions, it was necessary to tune through the band pretty quickly, to hear any replies to a CQ. This meant receivers with fast tuning rates and not too much selectivity. The result was that each QSO required much more room than today. The total available spectrum on 80, 40, and 20 added up to only 1200 kilocycles. (We're talking about the '30s, so I use the historic term). 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. Saturation was not the only problem. There were about 19,000 USA licensed hams in 1929. Their number had grown slowly but steadily from the post WW1 reactivation ten years earlier. In 1929 there came new regs that dramatically cut the width of the bands (40 was once 7-8 Mc., 20 was 14-16 Mc.) and required much cleaner signals from ham stations. Yet over the next few years, in the depths of the Great Depression, the number of US ham licenses almost tripled, to 46,000. In addition, many newcomers left the hobby quickly - at one point in the early '30s, turnover approached 40% per year. That meant most hams were newcomers, often technically and operationally lacking in skills and knowledge. One less-than-knowledgeable ham with a faulty transmitter could make a real mess on the band. Worse, a ham who strayed out of the band could mess up nonamateur radio services in a big way. The very existence of amateur radio in the 1930s wasn't very secure. Even after hams were allowed back on the air after WW1, there were several efforts to kill off or severely restrict amateur radio all through the 1920s. Amateur radio did not achieve international treaty status until 1927, and the price for that status was the extreme loss of bandspace on 40 and 20 meters listed above. The 1927 treaty also required clean signals, Morse Code testing and written testing of all radio amateurs. Those in the 1930s who knew the history understood that if amateurs strayed out of their bands too much, the same forces that had tried to kill off amateur radio in the '20s might well succeed in the 1930s. The idea was to slow the rapid turnover *and* insure that new hams were more operationally skilled and technically knowledgeable, by requiring a little more code speed and a lot more technical knowledge. Today we have far more bandwidth, far more sophisticated equipment, and far more options in choice of band and mode. Before criticizing the actions of almost 70 years ago, one should first get a clear picture of the conditions of the time. Critics of the ARRL action are invited to build an operating amateur station, using only parts and techniques available in the early '30s - and do it on a Depression-era budget, as well. Then try to use said station on the ham bands, and see what conclusions are drawn. The point of all this is that ham radio was VERY different in the '30s, and solutions that seem simple and obvious today were not practical for most hams back then. What is really amazing is that so many hams succeeded, using such simple equipment. A big part of the story was the use of CW, and the operating skills of the hams of the day. But in some circles it is electropolitically incorrect to talk about operating skills in a positive manner. Or to suggest that perhaps the Ancient Ones knew something about what they were doing. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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
|
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? |
More Real Estate Follies
HiYa Hans, Are you wearing your uniform to the Legion Christmas party this year? Lloyd "KØHB" wrote in message k.net... "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 |
More Real Estate Follies
KØHB wrote:
"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 wereto 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. But there's a big problem there....see below 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 isnot appropriate for frequencies used only by a single country or very smallgroup 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? But do the actual users get a real voice? Do I get to vote on the bandplan for bands I use? Do I even get to elect the representative who does? Or will the bandplans be decided upon by folks whom are even less beholden to "the users" than the FCC? I agree with you that some frequencies are better planned at a more locallevel when those plans have no global implications. IARU is already regionally localized into Region I, II, and III, and that localization makes perfectsense 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 thatmodel 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 bandplan 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 yearslater 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. And here's the problem: Suppose for a moment the IARU scheme is done by regionfor HF - after all, that's how the allocations work. So IARU reps from all the Region 2 countries decide how the Region 2 HF bandplan works. Does each member country get one vote? If so, that puts the USA, with its 661,000+ amateurs, at the same voting level as a country with a few dozen amateurs. A coalition of small countries with a handful of amateurs could dictate the bandplan for whole region. If not, the USA's enormous amateur population makes us the de-facto 800 pound gorilla in the region. In either case, the IARU member society for the USA is...the ARRL. Do you think everyone will be glad the ARRL is the USA's representative for determining bandplans? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
More Real Estate Follies
Paul Runninghorse Vigil
Senior Consultant 30 Years Experienced Creative Real Estate Buying or Selling, Creative Financing Notes & Cash Flows. Homes, Land, Hotels, Commercial, Trust Deeds and Real Estate Investigations. FREE Telephone Consultation Ph # 303-284-0636 Fax 303-284-0974 Was a Broker, Realtor and Owner Operator of Real Estate Brokerages and Mortgage Companies. * Refer-A-Friend www.capitalvigilfundingdept.com |
More Real Estate Follies
Paul Runninghorse Vigil
Senior Consultant 30 Years Experienced FREE TELEPHONE CONSULTATION ( Do you Want to Know how to Buy real estate with Little or NO MONEY DOWN ) or know how to Design a Creative Owner Carry Financing Mortgage Notes? Or if you are selling your real estate or your business, (Residential or Commercial) How to design Cash Flows? I can show you how. Hi I Am Paul Runninghorse Vigil Senior Consultant 30 Years Experienced, in Creative Real Estate Buying or Selling and in Creative Real Estate Financing Notes, Trust Deeds and Real Estate Investigations. Ph # 303-284-0636 Fax 303-284-0974 Was a Broker, Realtor and Owner Operator of Real Estate Brokerages and Mortgage Companies. * Refer-A-Friend www.capitalvigilfundingdept.com |
More Real Estate Follies
wrote And here's the problem: You haven't described a problem, Jim. You've simply listed some questions about how such a plan would be reasonably implemented in the "real world". Suppose for a moment the IARU scheme is done by region for HF - after all, that's how the allocations work. So IARU reps from all the Region 2 countries decide how the Region 2 HF bandplan works. Sounds like the basis of a plan to me. Probably ought to flesh it out with some inter-region liaison mechanism, since RF has a habit of crossing the arbitrary lines that we humans draw on maps. Does each member country get one vote? No. IARU doesn't operate on a "one country, one vote" basis (except to elect the regional officers). They accomplish their "work" in the framework of a purpose-appointed set of working committees, similar to the various working committee's that other international standards bodies use. These committees tend to be smallish, on the order of a dozen or less individuals and as such do not directly mirror the demographic makeup of the parent organization. This serves to isolate the committee from the "politics" and focused on the "best working solution", not the "best political solution". The committee product is set of recommendations to be adopted (or modified or rejected) by the parent organization (in this case the IARU regional officers). Rejection or modification is rare, as the oppointing body needs to justify over-riding their own appointed body of experts. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
More "Raped an Old Friend" Follies
|
More Real Estate Follies
|
More Real Estate Follies
KØHB wrote:
wrote And here's the problem: You haven't described a problem, Jim. You've simply listed some questions about how such a plan would be reasonably implemented in the "real world". That's certainly an arguable point, but I won't argue it! Suppose for a moment the IARU scheme is done by region for HF - after all, that's how the allocations work. So IARU reps from all the Region 2 countries decide how the Region 2 HF bandplan works. Sounds like the basis of a plan to me. Probably ought to flesh it out with some inter-region liaison mechanism, since RF has a habit of crossing the arbitrary lines that we humans draw on maps. Agreed! Does each member country get one vote? No. IARU doesn't operate on a "one country, one vote" basis (except to elect the regional officers). They accomplish their "work" in the framework of a purpose-appointed set of working committees, similar to the various working committee's that other international standards bodies use. These committees tend to be smallish, on the order of a dozen or less individuals and as such do not directly mirror the demographic makeup of the parent organization. This serves to isolate the committee from the "politics" and focused on the "best working solution",not the "best political solution". The committee product is set of recommendations to be adopted (or modified or rejected) by the parent organization (in this case the IARU regional officers). Rejection or modification is rare, as the oppointing body needs to justify over-riding their own appointed body of experts. But in the "real world", that would boil down to a bunch of appointed experts going into the proverbial smoky back room and coming up with a bandplan that would have the force of law in the USA. Other member countries might or might not make the bandplan into law. End result is the USA's subband regulation would be determined by a committee made up of folks who are mostly not citizens of the USA, and even less beholden to American hams than the FCC or ARRL. ARRL is criticized for making *proposals* on behalf of all US hams. Imagine the reaction to IARU making the *rules* for all US hams... 73 de JIm, N2EY |
More cross posted Lloyd Follies
|
More Real Estate Follies
From: on Dec 11, 8:08 pm
wrote: K؈B wrote: "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 individualpays memberships dues in IARU, all hams are defacto members of IARU becauseeach 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. But there's a big problem there....see below You always know better than everyone else. See below. Tsk, we've seen it many, many times... :-( 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? But do the actual users get a real voice? Do I get to vote on the bandplan for bands I use? Do I even get to elect the representative who does? Didn't Carl attend the last ITU meeting? Didn't the ARRL attend? Didn't the FCC attend? How much representation do you need, Jim? Himself in the Chairman's chair? Or will the bandplans be decided upon by folks whom are even less beholden to "the users" than the FCC? Benevolent King Jim will rule intelligently and fairly. 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. And here's the problem: Let me sit down and pour a stiff drink. ...and I slip a note to Hans suggesting he change the "hour" to "24 hours" to accommodate the international time zones of the IARU... Suppose for a moment the IARU scheme is done by regionfor HF - after all, that's how the allocations work. So IARU reps from all the Region 2 countries decide how the Region 2 HF bandplan works. Does each member country get one vote? If so, that puts the USA, with its 661,000+ amateurs, at the same voting level as a country with a few dozen amateurs. A coalition of small countries with a handful of amateurs could dictate the bandplan for whole region. Oh, my. I hope that the US hams have treated "thier" neighbor hams kindly. If King Jim has so decreed, they have. Meanwhile there's a large crowd who've just dropped the drawbridge and are storming the castle. King Jim may have to abdicate to a simple white "throne." If not, the USA's enormous amateur population makes us the de-facto 800 pound gorilla in the region. Can't we all just get along? King Kong made it to the top of the Empire State building, then had a big fall. You might say Kong "went ape" when he couldn't get what he wanted. Helluva big disposal problem for NYC. The same for the fantasies of all those morsemen who want their private little playground at the expense of others. Well, those guys are biodegradeable also... In either case, the IARU member society for the USA is...the ARRL. Which is why it's so important to keep movers and shakers like Carl out of the organization's management. God rest ye, league gentlemen, let nothing you dismay... Do you think everyone will be glad the ARRL is the USA's representative for determining bandplans? It would be better if the IARU declared a plan rather than go with the ARRL's recent bandplan scheme. ARRL still doesn't "represent" any more than one in five U.S. amateur radio licensees. They barely made one in four a while back. They've been nothing but a MINORITY representative organization all along. ARRL has NEVER "represented" those who might want to join amateur radio through licensing...they just dictate to everyone what newcomers must think and do. If the ARRL *truly* wanted to "represent" all U.S. radio amateurs, they should quit going around with their familiar arrogant posturing of "we know what is best for the rest of you." FCC of the futu "Here are your allocated bands, use all allocated modes anywhere. No bandplans. Enjoy your options. Try not to mess up comms of others and follow the technical requirements." That's really all that's needed for a HOBBY. Those who need control, control, and compex fastidious little sub-band planning should go to Dr. Phil or join a federal comms agency. Since I've been told the FAA grants amateur radio licenses, not the FCC, I may have to start writing the FAA. :-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com