SARL will not follow US band regulation method

[g4tut]

SARL will not follow US band regulation method

At its recent meeting, the Council of the South African Radio League rejected a proposal to follow the American way of regulating band planning.

In the USA the FCC determines the various segments with some interaction from the ARRL.

In South Africa, the amateur radio bands are not sub-divided by the regulatory authority but by an IARU gentlemen's agreement.

South Africa follows the IARU band plan, which is considered at IARU Region 1 Conferences held every third year.

The system provides flexibility as it avoids that changes, if required, have to be made following the regulatory process, which is complex and takes a long time.

To enjoy the amateur radio allocation to the full, it is essential that radio amateurs follow the IARU band plan.
The band plan is available on http://www.sarl.org.za/hf_happenings.asp or simply go to www.sarl.org.za and click on the left hand side link called HF Happenings

The new USA arrangement goes into operation on 15 December 2006. It restricts USA amateurs to CW only in the segment 7 000 - 7 125 kHz which is a problem for stations outside the USA who are restricted to 7 000 - 7 100 kHz.

There are several other restrictions which DXers should take note of if they are looking to work the US. The USA bands can be downloaded from www.arrl.org


Daily Amateur Radio RSS News Service:
http://www.southgatearc.org/

Add News Service to your Website: http://www.southgatearc.org/rss/index.htm
Add News Service to your PC: http://www.southgatearc.org/rss/newsreader.htm
Upload Your News Items: http://www.southgatearc.org/news/your_news.htm

[KB1SF]

What a breath of fresh air!

Throughout most of the rest of the world, our Amateur Bands are regulated by bandwidth, not by license class or operating mode. #It's only in the United States where our bands are carved up into ever-smaller sub-bands (and sub-sub bands) based on license class and operating mode, which are, in turn, based on a person passing an ever-more-irrelevant series of “achievement tests” in order to have access to them. #

And, now that there are no remaining international regulatory requirements to support it, the longer the FCC takes to (finally) ditch their arcane Morse testing requirement, the more likely it seems they are working on a far more sweeping plan to eventually ditch their whole stupid "incentive licensing" approach as well. #By their recent actions and statements to date, they have already indicated their belief that incentive licensing has become an increasingly expensive (not to mention overly restrictive, contentious if not systemically discriminatory) regulatory albatross that has now LONG outlived its usefulness.

But, before they drop incentive licensing, the FCC will first need to STOP regulating our Service by license class and operating mode. #That’s because a lot of the regulated sub-band foolishness now in place in the United States is there for no other purpose than to maintain the “reward system” for incentive licensing.

In fact, I firmly believe the biggest hurdle the FCC now faces in administering our Amateur Service in the United States is how best to completely dismantle the whole, sorry "license-class-based-frequency-and-mode" regulated sub-band MESS their predecessors left for them without ALSO raising enough ruckus from the crusty curmudgeons still pining for days gone by to write their Congressmen and Senators to complain. #That's why I think we will witness a gradual dismantling of incentive licensing (along with the regulated sub-bands based on license class and operating mess that goes along with it) over the course of several months or years rather than forcing such long overdue changes all at once. #

Throughout the rest of the world, Amateur licenses are regarded simply as “certificates of safety", and the differences between their license classes reflect those precepts. #For example, in most other places in the world, power output is the central factor that differentiates one license class from another. #Such licenses are NOT tied to some silly (not to mention increasingly meaningless) series of "merit badges" (regulated frequency and mode privileges) like those we all used to earn in the Boy Scouts. #

The bottom line here is that, in the United States, the FCC is finally realizing that becoming certified as an Amateur Radio Operator SHOULD simply be a license to learn. #It should NOT be a series of achievement tests that hand out frequency and mode “rewards” to licensees for successfully completing ever more irrelevant, multiple choice examinations over obscure questions drawn from published question pools. #


73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[kb2vxa]

BRAVO!

(applause sign flashing)

It's your turn "crusty curmudgeons" to complain about the "dumbing down" and eventual CB style chaos.

When they are through we shall hear from Professor Chicken Little of Perdue University and his scientific dissertation on the Falling Sky Theory followed by a general discussion of global warming.

This is your announcer Don Pardo. And now a word from our sponsor Rinso Blue, the little blue tablet that keeps the blue in the Blue Network.

[W9WHE]

KB1SF writes:

Throughout the rest of the world, Amateur licenses are regarded simply as “certificates of safety".

I doubt the regulatory bodies of the various governments would agree with KB1SF. Remember:

The ONLY thing seperating us from CB is the standards. Take away the standards and we will become CB.

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Dec. 04 2006,10:08)]I doubt the regulatory bodies of the various governments would agree with KB1SF. Remember:

The ONLY thing seperating us from CB is the standards. Take away the standards and we will become CB.
Well, Jonathan, once again, I invite you to take a good, long, hard look at the FCC's track record to date. #Have, YOU seen anything in their actions in the last 5 or 10 years that would convince you that the FCC is now poised to do anything OTHER than continue deregulating our Service? # If so, let's hear it!

The problem with always looking to the Government for "standards" and to regulate everything we do is that they can just as easily take privileges away as grant them. #And, as we've now seen with their incentive licensing debacle, CHANGING such albatrosses as technology and international convention change becomes difficult, if not impossible to do. #That's because such "mother may I?" approaches to regulating tend to also generate hundreds of narrow and horribly entrenched special interests along the way.

What's more, your "only thing separating us from CB" broken record is simply more paranoid, elitist snobbery from the 1950s that has never, EVER proven true. #Indeed, you and I BOTH know there are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of former CBers who have joined our ranks over the years and who continue to play by the rules while contributing richly to the hobby. #

On the other hand, published (and therefore verifiable) statistics HAVE shown that there's been a preponderance of crusty, old, 20 WPM Extras who have been earning a fair-sized chunk of the FCC's Mr. Hollingsworth's salary over the years, IN SPITE OF all the so-called "lid filters" that were supposedly built into the system.

The bottom line here is that FCC's tests for the Amateur Service have now been made so easy to memorize that it's only mentally disabled folks…those who are mentally or physically unable to memorize such material…who can't pass them. So, for all practical purposes, those FCC "standards" which you so obsessively seek have long since become history. # In that sense (and according to your narrow definition of the term) Amateur Radio in the United States has ALREADY become CB.

So, by your definition, I guess that also makes all of us CBers, which, in turn, makes you the only person on our bands now worthy of your conversation.

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[W9WHE]

Keith, you can argue all you want, but it will NOT change the facts.

1) CB is a mess because there are no standards and no enforcement.
2) Amateur radio is differenct from CB because there are standards and some modicum of enforcement.

You might not like those facts, but they are undeniable.

Reduce the Amateur standards, and we get that much closer to CB. Remove all ham standards, and CBers will come to ham radio and bring their antics, reverbs, roger beeps, lingo and bad equipment.

You might not like those facts, but they are undeniable. Denying facts will NOT make them go away. Denying facts will not change them. Ham radio is no different from flying. Lower the standards and bad things are going to happen.

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Dec. 05 2006,08:25)]Keith, you can argue all you want, but it will NOT change the facts.

1) CB is a mess because there are no standards and no enforcement.
2) Amateur radio is differenct from CB because there are standards and some modicum of enforcement.

You might not like those facts, but they are undeniable.

Reduce the Amateur standards, and we get that much closer to CB. Remove all ham standards, and CBers will come to ham radio and bring their antics, reverbs, roger beeps, lingo and bad equipment.

You might not like those facts, but they are undeniable. Denying facts will NOT make them go away. Denying facts will not change them. Ham radio is no different from flying. Lower the standards and bad things are going to happen.
Unfortunately, Jonathan, the “facts” you cite to support your argument are anything but. #

Your argument arrogantly (and erroneously) assumes that ALL former CBers will bring ALL of their bad habits with them. #This is the same illogic that presumes that, just because a person can pass a series of multiple choice tests with answers published in a question pool on ever-more irrelevant information (or can pass a 20 WPM code test) then they are ALL going to be “good little girls and boys”. #Nothing could be further from the truth…. on either count.

Ham Radio is forever changing and evolving. #In fact, the only constant in our Service IS change! #And it will probably take at least another generation or two for such “CBer paranoia” that is still all too prevalent in our Service to completely disappear. #

In fact, I believe that the aging and eventual death the older generation of Hams will be an essential element in the progress of our Service, since it very effectively takes care of all the Luddites from a previous generation that are reluctant to let go of old, fallacious ideas, or ideas (like Morse code testing along with all the other bogus “lid filters” in our license and regulatory structure) that are no longer based in any operational need, let alone reality. #

Now, certainly, such recalcitrance is understandable, because such people have often framed their entire life around one way of doing things only to now be faced with a stark, new reality. #As Max Plank, one of the greatest physicists of the Twentieth century once commented, “Innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. #What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and the growing generation is familiarized with the new, innovative ideas right from the beginning.”

So, Jonathan, if you don’t like the way Ham Radio is now changing, I suggest you write your Congressman, write the FCC, or run for office in the League. #But, regardless of what you or I may say here, the Amateur Radio Service in the United States will continue to evolve…which is as it should be. #

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[K1OU]

Jonathan,

If the standards are such an issue, how can you explain K1MAN, WB2OTK, WA4D, and KV4FZ?

[K1OU]

Quote[/b] (kb1sf @ Dec. 06 2006,14:47)]So, Jonathan, if you don’t like the way Ham Radio is now changing, I suggest you write your Congressman, write the FCC, or run for office in the League. #
That's easy. It's easier for Jonathan to point a finger than to lend a hand.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (K1OU @ Dec. 06 2006,19:27)]Jonathan,

If the standards are such an issue, how can you explain K1MAN, WB2OTK, WA4D, and KV4FZ?
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause... Yes, K1OU, the real and difficult Morse and unpublished written testing standards of the past could not filter all the degenerates, but they did keep out a large majority of them.

Jonathan is correct, and yet the “dumbing down” continues.

73.

[K1OU]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 06 2006,20:07)]Quote[/b] (K1OU @ Dec. 06 2006,19:27)]Jonathan,

If the standards are such an issue, how can you explain K1MAN, WB2OTK, WA4D, and KV4FZ?
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause... #Yes, K1OU, the real and difficult Morse and unpublished written testing standards of the past could not filter all the degenerates, but they did keep out a large majority of them.

Jonathan is correct, and yet the “dumbing down” continues.

73.
That didn't answer my question. How can you explain away the aforementioned with the logic being that the standards were such a filter? And I am using the same black/white mentality that Jonathan is using. Because somebody was a CB'er, they are awful? There are some ex-CB'ers who can run rings around both of us technically. Same goes for some NCT's. Then, when Jonathan is reminded that he is a General, he accuses others of elitism. But it's okay for him to look down his nose at others? It doesn't work both ways. Also, Jonathan doesn't share that he waited for the relaxation of the code standard to upgrade his license. He might have some credibility if he would have spent time getting his code speed up before he started shooting off his piehole about dumbing down

And "large majority" is speculation. Show me some empirical data, and you might convince me.

As for the dumbing down, there are more than likely some old-timers who feel that anybody licensed after 1951 (the year the Novice license was introduced) was given a handout because they didn't have to draw diagrams and show their work.

Something perhaps about judging not lest ye be judged?

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (K1OU @ Dec. 06 2006,20:45)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 06 2006,20:07)]Quote[/b] (K1OU @ Dec. 06 2006,19:27)]Jonathan,

If the standards are such an issue, how can you explain K1MAN, WB2OTK, WA4D, and KV4FZ?
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause... Yes, K1OU, the real and difficult Morse and unpublished written testing standards of the past could not filter all the degenerates, but they did keep out a large majority of them.

Jonathan is correct, and yet the “dumbing down” continues.

73.
That didn't answer my question. How can you explain away the aforementioned with the logic being that the standards were such a filter? And I am using the same black/white mentality that Jonathan is using. Because somebody was a CB'er, they are awful? There are some ex-CB'ers who can run rings around both of us technically. Same goes for some NCT's. Then, when Jonathan is reminded that he is a General, he accuses others of elitism. But it's okay for him to look down his nose at others? It doesn't work both ways. Also, Jonathan doesn't share that he waited for the relaxation of the code standard to upgrade his license. He might have some credibility if he would have spent time getting his code speed up before he started shooting off his piehole about dumbing down

And "large majority" is speculation. Show me some empirical data, and you might convince me.

As for the dumbing down, there are more than likely some old-timers who feel that anybody licensed after 1951 (the year the Novice license was introduced) was given a handout because they didn't have to draw diagrams and show their work.

Something perhaps about judging not lest ye be judged?
First off, I am NOT an old-timer... I was licensed as a Novice in 1981 at the age of 15.

Second, I seriously doubt there are many CB'ers or ex-CB’ers that'll run rings around us "old-timers" technically.


I will use myself as an example:

At an early age, I used ham radio to confirm my interest in electronics and telecommunications. It helped me decide and pursue a career as a technician, engineer, consultant, and project manager in the broad field of wire-line and wireless telecom. Alas, I start a new mid-career position as a Sr. Engineer in the lower forty-eight on Monday next -- designing, building, testing, and commissioning the first-in-the-Nation, Phase II, Project 25 digital land mobile radio system. There are quite a few of us so-called technically inclined "old-timers" out there who got their start in telecom and other technical industries because of ham radio. And, I would be safe to say most of the so-called "old-timers" out there are not willing to fundamentally change licensing standards -- or fundamentally change the nature of the service.

I will conclude by saying, “Without comprehension and performance-based amateur radio testing (high standards – not the diluted version today consisting of regurgitated memorization of the published FCC question pool), as well as a performance-based skills exam, ham radio is nothing more than CB.

Go fish...

P.S. BTW, I will be the judge... for I am an INTJ -- they make wonderful judges. Look that up...

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (kb1sf @ Dec. 03 2006,17:15)]Indeed, you and I BOTH know there are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of former CBers who have joined our ranks over the years and who continue to play by the rules while contributing richly to the hobby. #
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
That's right, Keith. And the key word is "former". Those who got tired of the lawless mess on 11m and came to ham radio in order to enjoy sensible radio experimentation and communications and, as you said, "play by the rules".

Well, those rules are in place for a reason. Destroying them would, in my opinion, sorely disappoint many of those same people who came here to get away from CB.

Therefore I am sure many of them would, as I do, object to your plans for ham radio.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Dec. 06 2006,23:03)]Quote[/b] (kb1sf @ Dec. 03 2006,17:15)]Indeed, you and I BOTH know there are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of former CBers who have joined our ranks over the years and who continue to play by the rules while contributing richly to the hobby.
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
That's right, Keith. And the key word is "former". Those who got tired of the lawless mess on 11m and came to ham radio in order to enjoy sensible radio experimentation and communications and, as you said, "play by the rules".

Well, those rules are in place for a reason. Destroying them would, in my opinion, sorely disappoint many of those same people who came here to get away from CB.

Therefore I am sure many of them would, as I do, object to your plans for ham radio.
Agreed.

[K1OU]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 06 2006,21:36)]Quote[/b] (K1OU @ Dec. 06 2006,20:45)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 06 2006,20:07)]Quote[/b] (K1OU @ Dec. 06 2006,19:27)]Jonathan,

If the standards are such an issue, how can you explain K1MAN, WB2OTK, WA4D, and KV4FZ?
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause... #Yes, K1OU, the real and difficult Morse and unpublished written testing standards of the past could not filter all the degenerates, but they did keep out a large majority of them.

Jonathan is correct, and yet the “dumbing down” continues.

73.
That didn't answer my question. #How can you explain away the aforementioned with the logic being that the standards were such a filter? #And I am using the same black/white mentality that Jonathan is using. #Because somebody was a CB'er, they are awful? #There are some ex-CB'ers who can run rings around both of us technically. #Same goes for some NCT's. #Then, when Jonathan is reminded that he is a General, he accuses others of elitism. #But it's okay for him to look down his nose at others? #It doesn't work both ways. Also, Jonathan doesn't share that he waited for the relaxation of the code standard to upgrade his license. #He might have some credibility if he would have spent time getting his code speed up before he started shooting off his piehole about dumbing down

And "large majority" is speculation. #Show me some empirical data, and you might convince me.

As for the dumbing down, there are more than likely some old-timers who feel that anybody licensed after 1951 (the year the Novice license was introduced) was given a handout because they didn't have to draw diagrams and show their work. #

Something perhaps about judging not lest ye be judged?
First off, I am NOT an old-timer... I was licensed as a Novice in 1981 at the age of 15.

Second, I seriously doubt there are many CB'ers or ex-CB’ers that'll run rings around us "old-timers" technically.


I will use myself as an example: #

At an early age, I used ham radio to confirm my interest in electronics and telecommunications. #It helped me decide and pursue a career as a technician, engineer, consultant, and project manager in the broad field of wire-line and wireless telecom. #Alas, I start a new mid-career position as a Sr. Engineer in the lower forty-eight on Monday next -- designing, building, testing, and commissioning the first-in-the-Nation, Phase II, Project 25 digital land mobile radio system. #There are quite a few of us so-called technically inclined "old-timers" out there who got their start in telecom and other technical industries because of ham radio. #And, I would be safe to say most of the so-called "old-timers" out there are not willing to fundamentally change licensing standards -- or fundamentally change the nature of the service.

I will conclude by saying, “Without comprehension and performance-based amateur radio testing (high standards – not the diluted version today consisting of regurgitated memorization of the published FCC question pool), as well as a performance-based skills exam, ham radio is nothing more than CB.

Go fish...

P.S. # #BTW, I will be the judge... for I am an INTJ -- they make wonderful judges. #Look that up...
And you still didn't answer my question. And I said there are some who can run rings, which does NOT imply a lot. Next.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (K1OU @ Dec. 07 2006,05:04)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 06 2006,21:36)]Quote[/b] (K1OU @ Dec. 06 2006,20:45)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 06 2006,20:07)]Quote[/b] (K1OU @ Dec. 06 2006,19:27)]Jonathan,

If the standards are such an issue, how can you explain K1MAN, WB2OTK, WA4D, and KV4FZ?
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause... Yes, K1OU, the real and difficult Morse and unpublished written testing standards of the past could not filter all the degenerates, but they did keep out a large majority of them.

Jonathan is correct, and yet the “dumbing down” continues.

73.
That didn't answer my question. How can you explain away the aforementioned with the logic being that the standards were such a filter? And I am using the same black/white mentality that Jonathan is using. Because somebody was a CB'er, they are awful? There are some ex-CB'ers who can run rings around both of us technically. Same goes for some NCT's. Then, when Jonathan is reminded that he is a General, he accuses others of elitism. But it's okay for him to look down his nose at others? It doesn't work both ways. Also, Jonathan doesn't share that he waited for the relaxation of the code standard to upgrade his license. He might have some credibility if he would have spent time getting his code speed up before he started shooting off his piehole about dumbing down

And "large majority" is speculation. Show me some empirical data, and you might convince me.

As for the dumbing down, there are more than likely some old-timers who feel that anybody licensed after 1951 (the year the Novice license was introduced) was given a handout because they didn't have to draw diagrams and show their work.

Something perhaps about judging not lest ye be judged?
First off, I am NOT an old-timer... I was licensed as a Novice in 1981 at the age of 15.

Second, I seriously doubt there are many CB'ers or ex-CB’ers that'll run rings around us "old-timers" technically.


I will use myself as an example:

At an early age, I used ham radio to confirm my interest in electronics and telecommunications. It helped me decide and pursue a career as a technician, engineer, consultant, and project manager in the broad field of wire-line and wireless telecom. Alas, I start a new mid-career position as a Sr. Engineer in the lower forty-eight on Monday next -- designing, building, testing, and commissioning the first-in-the-Nation, Phase II, Project 25 digital land mobile radio system. There are quite a few of us so-called technically inclined "old-timers" out there who got their start in telecom and other technical industries because of ham radio. And, I would be safe to say most of the so-called "old-timers" out there are not willing to fundamentally change licensing standards -- or fundamentally change the nature of the service.

I will conclude by saying, “Without comprehension and performance-based amateur radio testing (high standards – not the diluted version today consisting of regurgitated memorization of the published FCC question pool), as well as a performance-based skills exam, ham radio is nothing more than CB.

Go fish...

P.S. BTW, I will be the judge... for I am an INTJ -- they make wonderful judges. Look that up...
And you still didn't answer my question. And I said there are some who can run rings, which does NOT imply a lot. Next.
In support of Jonathan, I sure did answer your question, "If the standards are such an issue, how can you explain K1MAN, WB2OTK, WA4D, and KV4FZ?" You just didn't like my answer...

[K1OU]

No, you didn't, because you are speculating that it kept out a large majority. You might be in a career due to ham radio, but show me ANYWHERE where one can quantify "large".

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Dec. 06 2006,23:03)]Quote[/b] (kb1sf @ Dec. 03 2006,17:15)]Indeed, you and I BOTH know there are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of former CBers who have joined our ranks over the years and who continue to play by the rules while contributing richly to the hobby. #
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
That's right, Keith. #And the key word is "former". #Those who got tired of the lawless mess on 11m and came to ham radio in order to enjoy sensible radio experimentation and communications and, as you said, "play by the rules".

Well, those rules are in place for a reason. #Destroying them would, in my opinion, sorely disappoint many of those same people who came here to get away from CB.

Therefore I am sure many of them would, as I do, object to your plans for ham radio.
Well, Jim...you can "object" all you want. #But it's the FCC that's making the plans for Amateur Radio going forward, not me. # #

As I suggested to Jonathan, if you folks are so hell-bent on keeping things exactly as they are, then I suggest you write your Congressman, your Senators, and/or the FCC to complain. #

In the meantime, I'm simply going to patiently wait for all the Luddites to come completely unglued when Morse testing is finally dropped and incentive licensing eventually goes the way of the dinosaur.

I expect the former will be happening "real soon now".

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (K1OU @ Dec. 07 2006,05:38)]No, you didn't, because you are speculating that it kept out a large majority. You might be in a career due to ham radio, but show me ANYWHERE where one can quantify "large".
This is an easy comparison:

CB: no requirements versus ham radio with which, until now, required real effort. Translation: no requirement for knowledge and comprehension versus an understanding of radio theory and comprehension of basic electronics.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (K1OU @ Dec. 07 2006,05:38)]No, you didn't, because you are speculating that it kept out a large majority. You might be in a career due to ham radio, but show me ANYWHERE where one can quantify "large".
No speculation really:


CB:

- Total bedlam operations for 35+ years
- No licensing requirements
- No need for knowledge and comprehension
- Attracts less motivated and educated individuals

Ham Radio:

- Modest and controlled operations for the most part (though declining due to recently relaxed requirements)
- Basic to difficult licensing requirements usually requiring some knowledge -- higher level exams requiring comprehension and demonstrated skills performance
- Usually attracts individuals with greater sensibilities, technical inclination, education, and gumption

30 years of operating and monitoring both bands proves the above. Others will agree.

Simple, eh? Did I really have to write this for you? I assumed not...

73.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (kb1sf @ Dec. 06 2006,16:10)]But it's the FCC that's making the plans for Amateur Radio going forward, not me. # #
Actually, if the FCC were (and I doubt it) making such plans, they would be going backwards, not forward. Forward suggests improvement.

[KB1SF]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Dec. 09 2006,08:14)]Quote[/b] (kb1sf @ Dec. 06 2006,16:10)]But it's the FCC that's making the plans for Amateur Radio going forward, not me. # #
Actually, if the FCC were (and I doubt it) making such plans, they would be going backwards, not forward. #Forward suggests improvement.
Well, Jim, I guess you are just going to have to get used to it...or go sailing, as you have said in another post.

Actually, right now, things are all very neat and tidy, with all of us in our respective license-class-and-operating-mode "cubbyholes". And, the status quo is certainly far less painful than the alternative.

The only problem with the current arrangement is that it has now become unlawfully discriminatory, not to mention ever more expensive for the FCC to maintain and administer. What's more, by arbitrarily "walling off" portions of our spectrum based on one's license class and/or (arcane) operating mode, the current regulatory system for our Service leaves large portions of our spectrum virtually unoccupied, while other portions are often completely jammed.

The simple fact that US Hams had to play "Mother may I?" and then wait YEARS for the FCC to finally act on a simple request to re-allocate tiny sub-band slivers of our spectrum is absolute proof that the current "incentive" and regulated sub-band approach is arbitrary, capricious, and inflexible (not to mention wasteful of both spectrum and the taxpayer's money). It is also totally incapable of not only encouraging new operating modes, but also of accommodating those new modes when they come along.

Right now, the regulatory approach to the Amateur Service in the United States could best be described as, "50 years of tradition unhampered by progress". That's because the FCC's basic regulatory approach to our Service assumes we are all still operating in the same way (and with the same technology) as we were in the 1950s.

We deserve better…much better. And, if my hunch is right, the FCC knows this, too.

That's why I remain convinced they are now working on an overall, sweeping plan to eventually get out of the sub-band regulation (and with it, incentive licensing) business for the Amateur Service altogether.

Now, I well realize I may well be "out to lunch" on all of this. But I'm betting that I'm right. And, if I AM correct, we are already WAY behind the power curve in preparing for the day when HF band planning becomes OUR (vs. the FCC's) sole responsibility.


73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[AC0GT]

Quote[/b] ]The new USA arrangement goes into operation on 15 December 2006. It restricts USA amateurs to CW only in the segment 7 000 - 7 125 kHz which is a problem for stations outside the USA who are restricted to 7 000 - 7 100 kHz.

The new USA arrangement DOES NOT restrict 7000 to 7125 kHz to CW only operation. It permits many different modes, voice just is not one of them.

I can't blame SARL for not following the USA band plan. Sometimes I wonder why the USA follows the current USA band plan.