A band too full?

[ka5s]

What’s efficient?

Whenever someone wants Amateur frequencies to make money with, I think about the hundreds of repeaters that run 40 minutes a day, if that, and shudder. Sheep for the shearing! But I do not want to talk about open versus closed.

I want to know what it takes to use our bands as they should be used.

You see, the other day I had a conversation with someone I think is pretty smart, who says our bands should be full of amateur signals. #And after all, if they were, that would keep commercial interests from being able to claim them. But I got to thinking...

I like really light traffic when I drive. Safer, less stressful, less pollution… but that is a very inefficient use of the road. #An efficient transportation network – if we follow the band use analogy – would be chock full of cars -- and a fully used band would be one where nobody else could get through until someone QRT’d.

CB, anyone?

This is how telephone and trunked radio folks define efficiency: Just enough capacity to handle all the demand. # Our regulators also define efficiency this way, with the added bonus of #bucks per megahertz to tell the good guys (BPL, possibly) from the bad guys. (Who, me?)

I’d like to define efficiency as being able to get through (propagation permitting) every time I got on the air. The road is empty, the band is quiet; there are no cops at the corner and every DXpedition is waiting #for me. Ha!

So how should we use our bands?


Cortland
KA5S

[KC9EOG]

I would be horrified if the bands all sounded like Field Day on 20 Meter phone. #That would be full use of the band. #I wouldn't have a problem with allowing no code operators on 15 and 10 meters. #
# I read once that the air force allocation from about 250-400 mhz could be halved if they would use ssb instead of am for their voice mode but that nobody wants to stand up to them. #All the megahertz wasted for over the air broadcasts when most people use cable, there are plenty of channels of open air around here and in most of the country.

[ai4ep]

How about the highways...full of cars and trucks with ONE person in them....mass transit would eliminate a lot of vehicles...

but no one wants to use mass transit...have to sit by some one who stinks... or smokes cigarettes...or gripes consistently... or is loud & obnoxious...or is on drugs...or is unsociable...or listens to the walkman more than they talk to other people...or is sick and should have stayed home. JOHN DOE public does not like mass transit, yet they force their CHILDREN to participitate in it every day on school buses, so what is the difference ?

[AG3Y]

EP, are you trying to HIJACK this thread ? ? ! ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[wa3vjb]

Efficient does not mean striving toward maximum band occupancy in the hobbyist radio system known as the Amateur Service. This was a popular misconception the ARRL and others were using to help promote acceptance of SSB back when HF was in higher demand.

As with the air traffic control system when commercial jetliners allowed higher altitude flight paths, our reaching upward in frequency has utilized a lot of additional spectrum and taken some of the load off HF in recent years.

Utilization is probably a better way of establishing a value judgment on our presence in any given band. Levels of activity help validate that we have a continued interest in that spot on the dial.

We are very fortunate that the FCC has long held in equal regard our various modes and activities, that is to say, we enjoy equal status in claiming that spot on the dial if it's vacant and the chance for interference minimal.

Such dynamic utilization of our spectrum is especially important on HF, where today the vast reserved portions for CW do NOT match contemporary levels of activity, and are long overdue to be scaled back accordingly.

It is on this issue that the group in Newington should spend its attention, NOT by proposing to use the regulatory system to promote novel specialties like digital communications, as they continuue to threaten to do with their draft bandwidth scheme.

[ai4ep]

no I aint trying to hijack no thread...I was just mentioning the " lack of efficientcy " on the highways with so many vehicles with only ONE person in it...that wind up parking next to each other at work ar at the shopping center or church.

nothing more

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]vjb: Such dynamic utilization of our spectrum is especially important on HF, where today the vast reserved portions for CW do NOT match contemporary levels of activity, and are long overdue to be scaled back accordingly.

Funny how the CW Ops have the WHOLE band to use and they stay in the bottom 60kHz. That leaves 200+khz for voice, PSK, RTTY, whatever. Wow VAST reserves!!!!! LMAO!

Leave the bottom 60kHz for cw only (sent by hand and rec'd by ear), and you can HAVE the rest. Deal?

[KM5FL]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Feb. 08 2005,14:30)]EP, are you trying to HYJACK this thread ? ? ! ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Naaaa. He just didn't understand the question. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

KM5FL

[kj5t]

As long as there is people on the bands, then the bands are being used for good reasons. I can usually find a clear spot to call CQ (unless its during a contest).. and when I get my Extra I will have more leg room.

I would not like to see EVERY band full of amateurs.. Up on VHF/UHF its nice to have free frequencies for emergecy's.. but it would be nice to see many of the dead repeaters active...