"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

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

wrote

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.

"Smoky back room"? Aren't you the evenhanded/non-biased wordsmith now?!?!?
Classic case of "don't confuse me with new ideas that I didn't think of". NIH
in spades.

Guys like you are why Amateur Radio is stuck in the 1940's.

KØHB wrote:
wrote

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.

"Smoky back room"?

Yes, Hans, "smoky back room".

Guess I should have included the "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE = ON" indicator
for that one, because you missed the point. My bad.

Look at how the ARRL is perceived by some hams, just for producing
*proposals*. Like the "regulation by bandwidth" thing. The ARRL Board
is frequently accused of "smoky back room" behavior - and tney're
elected!
Do you think an unelected IARU committee would fare any better?

If an IARU committee were given the power to make
bandplans that became the defacto regulations, can't you hear the
shouting?

Aren't you the evenhanded/non-biased wordsmith now?!?!?
Classic case of "don't confuse me with new ideas that I didn't think of".NIH
in spades.

Guys like you are why Amateur Radio is stuck in the 1940's.

I simply disagree with the idea that "market forces" should set
bandplans.
We've seen what happens when some things are not adequately
regulated.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
ups.com...

KØHB wrote:
wrote

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.

"Smoky back room"?

Yes, Hans, "smoky back room".

Guess I should have included the "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE = ON" indicator
for that one, because you missed the point. My bad.

Look at how the ARRL is perceived by some hams, just for
producing *proposals*. ............ Do you think an unelected
IARU committee would fare any better?

If an IARU committee were given the power to make
bandplans that became the defacto regulations, can't
you hear the shouting?

Sure there'd be shouting! Hell, there are people still shouting here on rrap
about how the old "Class A" guys were hurt by the "Great Giveaway" back over a
half century ago. Let em shout!

We've seen what happens when some things are
not adequately regulated.

But more than that, we've seen what happens when some things are over-regulated.
No competition generally brings stagnation, resistance to progressive
initiatives, and eventual marginalization. Like what's happening to ARRL and
Amateur Radio.

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.