LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11   Report Post  
Old December 11th 05, 05:31 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
Dee Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Power Industry BPL Reply Comments & Press Release Jeff Maass Antenna 38 June 29th 04 11:19 PM
Power Industry BPL Reply Comments & Press Release Jeff Maass Antenna 0 June 25th 04 11:25 PM
BPL pollution - file reply comments by August 6 Dave Shrader Antenna 4 July 30th 03 05:25 AM
BPL pollution – file reply comments by August 6 Peter Lemken Antenna 0 July 27th 03 09:47 AM
BPL interference - reply comments - YOUR ACTION REQUIRED Allodoxaphobia Antenna 2 July 10th 03 11:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017