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!

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

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

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

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

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

"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