Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
Definitely Not Qualified
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
What Really Happened in 1936
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Power Industry BPL Reply Comments & Press Release | Antenna | |||
Power Industry BPL Reply Comments & Press Release | Antenna | |||
BPL pollution - file reply comments by August 6 | Antenna | |||
BPL pollution – file reply comments by August 6 | Antenna | |||
BPL interference - reply comments - YOUR ACTION REQUIRED | Antenna |