Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |