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

"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

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

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

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

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

wrote:
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 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.

But there's a big problem there....see below

You always know better than everyone else. 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 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 decidehow
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?

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.

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 ofthe
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 nexthour I
can establish a secure and private "meeting room" on the internet wherethey 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.

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 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?

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.

Do you think everyone will be glad the ARRL is the USA's representative
for determining bandplans?

73 de Jim, N2EY

It would be better if the IARU declared a plan rather than go with the
ARRL's recent bandplan scheme.