US subands

[VE7NOT]

In canada they let us run any mode on alomost any ham band.

Now given canada has less then 1/10 of the usa population.

So of 10 times the amount of operators were given ssb/am/fm below the common barrier then 10 times the amount of traffic would be there. Bad? Maybe. maybe not?

I count maybe 3 at most cw stations emerging from WA, OR or BC on 80m below 3750. A look at that loosely says... lots of space left. Maybe.

However lets add 20 lsb used frequencies. Lets say on decided to use usb just to be different.

Lets say two more want to use am and fm modes.

Now we got a problem.

There could be interferance? Prehaps.

An observation. British Columbia's net is on 3729 now. In the US CW. However rarely is there any CW there and they are free to check in on CW.

What if a more silly band like 10m was turned over to no subbands. Probably at it's bandwidth nothing.

40m? Uh oh... hmm myabe not so great.

[N5PVL]

You hit the nail on the head about the lower bands having less bandwidth to share, and about problems coming up when modes are mixed, especially wide modes.

Of the comments at the FCC about the ARRL's bandwidth segmentation proposal, just about everyone has asked them to turn it down. The FCC has been denying a lot of the silly stuff from the ARRL over the last few years, so there's good reason to believe this idea will be turned down too.

[N1XHF]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 07 2006,03:18)]You hit the nail on the head about the lower bands having less bandwidth to share, and about problems coming up when modes are mixed, especially wide modes.

Of the comments at the FCC about the ARRL's bandwidth segmentation proposal, just about everyone has asked them to turn it down. The FCC has been denying a lot of the silly stuff from the ARRL over the last few years, so there's good reason to believe this idea will be turned down too.
I for one hope the ARRL plan is turned down.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]I count maybe 3 at most cw stations emerging from WA, OR or BC on 80m below 3750. A look at that loosely says... lots of space left. Maybe.
Just because you can't hear them below 3750 doesn't mean they're not there. How good is your 80m antenna?

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Feb. 08 2006,06:24)]Quote[/b] ]I count maybe 3 at most cw stations emerging from WA, OR or BC on 80m below 3750. A look at that loosely says... lots of space left. Maybe.
Just because you can't hear them below 3750 doesn't mean they're not there. How good is your 80m antenna?
I was thinking that, too...

I don't use 80m a lot, and part of the reason is my inverted vee, which I cut for 3750, actually came out resonant on about 3850 and I never bothered stretching it; thus, it loads up well without a tuner in the phone band, but down at 3550 its SWR is about 5:1. I can use it anyway, but usually just use 40m and other bands for CW instead -- where my antennas are nearly perfect and don't require any tuner.

But, as 40m went so "long" last night that most of North America faded away around 0230 UTC, I did drop down to 80m and listen around. I heard a lot of CW activity, all over 80m, from 3505 or so up to, well above 3700. A lot of the "higher up" stuff was obviously nets, using "QN" signals and such. I didn't spend a lot of time "copying traffic," but there sure were a lot of nets. A lot of stuff down low was DX. And U.S. stations calling the DX.

I didn't hear a lot of wide open space. There's definitely room for twice as many CW signals, easily. But at SSB bandwidths, no. Probably room for a couple dozen SSB QSOs in there without too much overlap, but not hundreds.

I'm not in B.C., I'm in southern CA, so my vantage point is different from a VE7's. But we're both on the west coast and probably hear at least 50% of the same stuff.

I was listening and operating between about 0230 and 0330 UTC last night (2/8/06 in UTC time).

WB2WIK/6

[kr2d]

There's a lot of CW activity in the 3650-3750 range, which is the US Novice CW subband. Slower(er) code that I can copy (mostly). I often hear some SSB there as well, usually very weak, I assume it is Candian. It seems that whenever I hear SSB below 3750, there is a CW QSO right on top of it.

I've heard weak SSB near 3580-3585, also, which is where PSK and other digital modes gather.

[kl7aj]

Of course, the ideal solution is to eliminate everything but CW.

Eric

[ad5wo]

Maybe we could take 11 meters back from the truckers (except channel 19 of course) and move CW there........ Don't shoot......I was out of my mind for a moment....:D

[K0RGR]

If your 80 meter antenna is like mine, and only 30 feet off the ground, you have an effective NVIS antenna, i.e., a 'Cloudburner". If you're in a quiet location, you might be surprised at what you'd hear with a decent vertical on 80.
I've been surprised lately at how much better my mobile antenna hears signals on the two coasts on 80 meters than my low dipole at home does. Of course, I put the dipole up to play with NVIS, so I'm happy with those results - it works pretty much as advertised at night - strong signals and no skip zone on signals from within about a 200 mile radius. I also have an s4-5 QRN level at home most of these evenings, thanks, I think, to a new plasma TV next door. The mobile is much quieter if I get away from the city.

When I lived in California, I used to listen to the 'ALCAN Highway Net' on 75 at night (I could check in when I was mobile in Canada). There was another group of VE's in the far north that met on AMTOR every night, and they weren't hard to work, either. But, I was using a very big vertical - the HYGain HyTower - with lots of radials.
It makes a big difference on 40 and 80.

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ Feb. 08 2006,00:35)]An observation. #British Columbia's net is on 3729 now. #In the US CW. #However rarely is there any CW there and they are free to check in on CW.
Interesting.

Just the other day a fellow was complaining to me about Canadians not following the bandplan and causing QRM to USA CW traffic nets on 80 meters.

So I thought I'd listen..

3721 CW QSO
3720 CW QSO
3720 Canadian SSB
3713.5 CW QSO
3705 CW QSO
3700 Canadian SSB
3700 South American SSB
3695 French Canadian SSB
3691 CW
3688 S American SSB
and so on.

[WA9SVD]

It may be unfortunate that some interference occurs, but I doubt Canadian operators can or should be expected to adhere to an ARRL-devised band plan.
While international cooperation is always necessary, it seems unfair to expect other countries' Amateur operators to comply with the Amreican band plan that is more restrictive than their own regulations.

[ve2nsm]

Quote[/b] (w8ji @ Feb. 08 2006,19:53)]Just the other day a fellow was complaining to me about Canadians not following the bandplan and causing QRM to USA CW traffic nets on 80 meters.
What band plan?

[N5PVL]

The U.S. band plan... The Canadians don't have one, from what I understand.

[ve2nsm]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 08 2006,21:45)]The U.S. band plan... The Canadians don't have one, from what I understand.
That was my point http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[N5PVL]

Let's see... You asked which band plan - because you knew which band plan? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Sorry, but I don't see any point to that.

[ve2nsm]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 08 2006,22:20)]Let's see... You asked which band plan - because you knew which band plan? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Sorry, but I don't see any point to that.
Well, ok.
I tried to be sarcastic about W8JI statement. I thought he was implying we should follow the US band plan.

Just that sometimes we get a little sensitive about some unexperimented _unidentified of course_ US stations telling us that we don't belong on 3728... or 14118 http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[N5PVL]

It seemed to me that W8JI heard somebody say that some Canadian operators were being rude, and when he checked to see if that was the case - it was.

There's no legal restriction that keeps HF Packet operators in the U.S. from let's say -- calling CQ repeatedly on 14.070 USB, the PSK31 "watering hole"... What keeps all those HF Packet operators from doing so?

It's called "good operating practice" and "common courtesy toward your fellow ham".

I'm sorry to hear you say that Canadiam hams are "too sensitive" to be recognizant of things like that because when you do so, you are performing a disservice to the great majority of your fellow Canadian hams who do utilize "good operating practice" and "common courtesy toward your fellow ham" in thier onair activities.

Let me guess... You must be one of those few Canadian operators who were being rude and thoughtless.

Am I right, OM?

[G8ADD]

Bear in mind that over here the band is 3.500 to 3.800. At night 3.600 to 3.800 is like the Tower of Babel with all the European languages heard in SSB contacts piled at least three deep. In theory CW can use all the band but you would need a good filter and finely honed concentration to do so in practise. Some do but not many. Stations from across the pond are only heard very rarely outside of the "DX Window" which is dominated by a few really strong Europeans. Often American and Canadian stations are very strong in and above the window but below the window it's rare to hear one above the racket!

If we had the same bands throughout the world it would be well worthwhile negotiating a common band plan, but in most countries a bandplan is just a "gentleman's agreement" and it's surprising how many hams don't consider themselves to be gentlemen.

73

Brian G8ADD

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (ve2nsm @ Feb. 08 2006,19:29)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 08 2006,22:20)]Let's see... You asked which band plan - because you knew which band plan? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Sorry, but I don't see any point to that.
Well, ok.
I tried to be sarcastic about W8JI statement. I thought he was implying we should follow the US band plan.

Just that sometimes we get a little sensitive about some unexperimented _unidentified of course_ US stations telling us that we don't belong on 3728... or 14118 #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Attitiudes like "what band plan" that are common, and a good reason why turning loose a half million US amateurs and just depending on cooperation from people being "nice guys" will not work.

For example, the VE2 sarcastically says "what band plan". He doesn't even know his own country's bandplan, and leaps to the conclusion I meant the USA plan!!!

The Canadian band plan is at:

Canadian Band plan (http://www.rac.ca/service/hfband.htm)

Many Canadian amateurs fail to follow it, and some don't even know about it.

The region II bandplan is:

Region Two Banplan (http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_HF_Band_Plan.html)

But most people, as shown in this example here, consider the written law their only guidelines.

For example on 160 meters two or three VE2's held a SSB schedule on 1838 LSB in violation of IARU region 2 bandplans, but cared less. Eventually they moved, but only reluctantly.

The Think Tank suggests people can follow bandplans, but when someone brings up bandplans the normal response is "what bandplans?".

Think about what you just saw here. Good example of how poorly band plans actually work.

73 Tom

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (ve2nsm @ Feb. 08 2006,18:48)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 08 2006,21:45)]The U.S. band plan... The Canadians don't have one, from what I understand.
That was my point #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I'm sorry, I quoted the wrong example post.

I meant to quote this one, where the VE2 agrees Canada doesn't have a band plan. Canada does have a bandplan.

This isn't intended to reflect on the VE2, but to illustrate how poorly band plans are known.

The Think Tank thinks 500,000 people will follow the bandplan. In my experience, most people won't know or care about any bandplan.

73 Tom

[WA2ZDY]

Quote[/b] (w8ji @ Feb. 09 2006,07:40)]The Think Tank thinks 500,000 people will follow the bandplan. In my experience, most people won't know or care about any bandplan.
And this is why I commented against 11305. Maybe 30 years ago things would have been different, but today? Never. It's every man for himself out there in too many cases these days on the bands.

The Think Tank used 160 as an example of how a non-segmented band might work. I counter that to get on 160 with any success takes a considerable amount of effort and antenna investment. As such 160 does not reflect the "norm" of US ham radio. And those who do put forth that effort are more likely to respect it.

Thomas Paine was correct when he said "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly." I've little doubt that explains a lot of the 160 success. And even so, during a contest on 160, all bets are off.

No, a gentlemens' agreement depends on gentlemen being part of the process. Our society in general no longer runs on "gentlemen." So sadly regulation must take the place of same.

I did include in my comments to 11305 and 11306 though that even as a CW operator, I believe the phone bands need to be expanded. And while I didn't include this thought in my comments, I personally would not find it objectionable if CW were no longer allowed in the "phone" subbands. There's no reason for CW to be permitted in the phone bands. Who's going to get on CW on 3900? That would surely be "fair" if fair is the name of the game here.

[ve2nsm]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 09 2006,04:54)]It seemed to me that W8JI heard somebody say that some Canadian operators were being rude, and when he checked to see if that was the case - it was.

There's no legal restriction that keeps HF Packet operators in the U.S. from let's say -- calling CQ repeatedly on 14.070 USB, the PSK31 "watering hole"... What keeps all those HF Packet operators from doing so?

It's called "good operating practice" and "common courtesy toward your fellow ham".

I'm sorry to hear you say that Canadiam hams are "too sensitive" to be recognizant of things like that because when you do so, you are performing a disservice to the great majority of your fellow Canadian hams who do utilize "good operating practice" and "common courtesy toward your fellow ham" in thier onair activities.

Let me guess... You must be one of those few Canadian operators who were being rude and thoughtless.

Am I right, OM?
Ok, let's get back there:
He (W8JI) said:
3721 CW QSO
3720 CW QSO
3720 Canadian SSB
3713.5 CW QSO
3705 CW QSO
3700 Canadian SSB
3700 South American SSB
3695 French Canadian SSB
3691 CW
3688 S American SSB

Now tell me where is the QRM? Unless the Canadian SSB at 3720 was USB, which I doubt, I don't see any QRM possibility here http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Probably the Canadian and the SA at 3700 did not even copy each other anyways.

As for the band plan, I am not a member of RAC, and when I took my classes and had my license, Industry Canada, back in that time the DOC (department of communications) never gave me any restrictions besides bandwidth.

Yes, I consider myself a gentlemen, no I never intentionally QRM another station, even if it's a mode I can't copy or a language I don't understand (BTW, US hams are known for that, it's not english, it's noise. But that's another story)

Anyways, bottom line is NO we don't have a band plan, we have guidelines made by a radio club that we mostly follow.

But nobody is gonna knock on my door if I work AM on 3700. Granted, I'm no gonna make any friends, that's for sure. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[N5PVL]

That's a real masterpiece there, NSM... Rather than comment, I think I'll just let your post stand on its own merit.

[ve2nsm]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 09 2006,11:15)]That's a real masterpiece there, NSM... Rather than comment, I think I'll just let your post stand on its own merit.
By all means, do comment.

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (ve2nsm @ Feb. 09 2006,07:45)]Ok, let's get back there:
He (W8JI) said:
3721 CW QSO
3720 CW QSO
3720 Canadian SSB
3713.5 CW QSO
3705 CW QSO
3700 Canadian SSB
3700 South American SSB
3695 French Canadian SSB
3691 CW
3688 S American SSB

Now tell me where is the QRM? Unless the Canadian SSB at 3720 was USB, which I doubt, I don't see any QRM possibility here #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #Probably the Canadian and the SA at 3700 did not even copy each other anyways.

As for the band plan, I am not a member of RAC, and when I took my classes and had my license, Industry Canada, #back in that time the DOC (department of communications) never gave me any restrictions besides bandwidth.

Yes, I consider myself a gentlemen, no I never intentionally QRM another station, even if it's a mode I can't copy or a language I don't understand (BTW, US hams are known for that, it's not english, it's noise. But that's another story)

Anyways, bottom line is NO we don't have a band plan, we have guidelines made by a radio club that we mostly follow.

But nobody is gonna knock on my door if I work AM on 3700. Granted, I'm no gonna make any friends, that's for sure. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Your post is a very good example of why turning 500,000 people loose won't work. Here's why:

1.) You stated you don't see the problem with a SSB station on the same carrier frequency as a CW station, or with CW stations a few kHz away.

I undersatnd your thinking, because it is the same as thousands of others. You think your SSB signal is very pure, has no composite noise or IM products, and has a brick-wall response.

Unfortunately that isn't how radios really work. The CW receiver has finite bandwidth, the transmitter has all sorts of inherent defects or flaws even if operated perfectly. While there are cases where a CW station and a SSB station can get that close, when they do it limits the dynamic range of the CW station. The SSB station often never knows he is doing that, because he "thinks" he has a perfect transmitter.

Mixing modes (http://www.w8ji.com/mixing_wide_and_narrow_modes.htm)

2.) You now admit a "certain radio club of which you are not a member" has a bandplan, but since you are not a member it does not apply to you.

This is exactly the same argument used over and over again against following an ARRL band plan, and IARU bandplan, or any other band plan. If it isn't a law by the licensing authorities, people really don't consider it an obligation. They only follow it because of the fights caused by not following it.

Unfortunately, more people than we might expect think that way...and enjoy upsetting other people.

-------------------
We see from your post why self-regulation and bandplans do not work well when large numbers of people are involved.

You are not the rare exception. Many people think the same way. The Think Tank postulated everyone would follow bandplans, and they would know when they were causing problems and work it out. WD8BIL, one of the people behind the Think Tank, actually had a web page that specifically said part 97 was the ONLY thing he followed, and he said he would do what he liked within what he felt were the limits of part 97.

This is a very common way of thinking, and it is also the reason deregulating HF in the USA will not work.

Until we get everyone to agree that the RAC represents Canada, the ARRL represents the USA, and the IARU sets the limits for all bandplans then a bandplan system will never work as well as government mandated mode segments. We would also have to get nearly everyone to understand how wide their transmitters really are, and to all agree to avoid bothering others at all costs.

The Think Tank never even looked at themselves and how they react to problems, yet still wanted to assure others everything would be OK.

73 Tom

[ve2nsm]

The other problem Tom, is the number of Canadian hams vs the number of US hams. If we would have to stay within the same limits, example, no phone under 14150, we would be overwhelmed by the numbers.

Also, because I'm coming from the french part of Canada, most of my QSO's are in french, with VE2s, Fs or ONs stations. They don't have the same band plan, they seldomly go over 14140.
Heck, if you follow the US band plan, you can't have a phone QSO with a french station if I'm not mistaken (I don't use 40m that much, it's a digital nightmare anyways between 7050 and 7100)

A different band plan for two countries so close is not working either, the best example is the digital modes eating year after year the little space left between 14100 and 14150. I've heard digital at 14119!
Do they check for QRM before transmitting? yeah right.

I still believe in listening before transmitting, for the band plan, I go with the crowd, of course, I wont work phone at 14020, or SSTV at 14190, but for the rest...

[WA9SVD]

in other words, the "Think Tank" doesn't think, but only thinks it thinks before suggesting a band plan? (I think.)

Unfortunately, a suggested or "Gentleman's (and Ladies') " agreement for a bandplan will only apply to Ladies and Gentlemen. Unless codified in law, it will be adhered to by many, skirted by a few, and totally ruined by a handful that will deliberately operate against the bandplan's guidelines. While that's not "Good Amateur Practice," if it's not the law, they feel they have no requirement to participate in (or even acknowledge) a bandplan with which they either disagree, or worse, merely choose to flaunt to cause trouble to other operators.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (ve2nsm @ Feb. 09 2006,16:42)]Heck, if you follow the US band plan, you can't have a phone QSO with a french station if I'm not mistaken (I don't use 40m that much, it's a digital nightmare anyways between 7050 and 7100)
But that also means that a French-speaker who happens to reside in the US is deprived of the opportunity to even have a French speaking phone QSO.

[N5PVL]

I think it means the think tank was running on empty.

The rules of the road say that if you're going to call your group a think tank, then you'd better be sure that you're all gassed up.

I recommend bean burritos, deviled eggs and warm beer. #

Gentlemen? ( Looking around in alarm ) Where?

[WA0LYK]

I want to know how the ARRL and CTT are going to publish their bandplans and notify everyone that it is available. The ARRL's membership is about 1/6 of the total ham population. Are they going to put tear out pages in QST and ask their members to give them to non-members.

Is either group going to pay postage to send a copy to every ham?

Are they going to have the VEC's put questions about it in every test?

These sound stupid, but they are something the FCC needs to ask these organizations about their petitions. Both groups emphasized that voluntary bandplans will work yet how are they going to diseminate them and keep them updated. As a petitioner recommending this, they should have some answers. I know my reply comments will find someone who has mentioned this so I can bring it up.

Without some committment to notify and update ALL US hams, we will end up just like Canada where it appears the vast majority of hams don't even know a recommended bandplan exists in RAC!

Jim
WA0LYK

[VE7NOT]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Feb. 08 2006,20:45)]I want to know how the ARRL and CTT are going to publish their bandplans and notify everyone that it is available. The ARRL's membership is about 1/6 of the total ham population. Are they going to put tear out pages in QST and ask their members to give them to non-members.
Which I why I don't recognize ARRL or RAC

[G8ADD]

This isn't just an HF problem. I am often bothered by FM nets in the beacon sub-band of 2 metres, the one net even sounds as if it's a club net! One station that I asked to qsy because his FM was blotting out several continental beacons during a lift commented that he had been operating for 16 years and it was the first time he had heard of the beacons. Then there are the nets that take place in the satellite sub band, it doesn't inconvenience me so much because I don't do satellites, but what bothers me is that some of the participants in these nets are Foundation Licensees (M3...) and their licenses don't permit them to operate there.

I am forced to the conclusion that some of these people live on another planet!

73

Brian G8ADD

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Feb. 09 2006,19:45)]I want to know how the ARRL and CTT are going to publish their bandplans and notify everyone that it is available. #The ARRL's membership is about 1/6 of the total ham population. #Are they going to put tear out pages in QST and ask their members to give them to non-members.

Is either group going to pay postage to send a copy to every ham?

Are they going to have the VEC's put questions about it in every test?

These sound stupid, but they are something the FCC needs to ask these organizations about their petitions. #Both groups emphasized that voluntary bandplans will work yet how are they going to diseminate them and keep them updated. #As a petitioner recommending this, they should have some answers. #I know my reply comments will find someone who has mentioned this so I can bring it up.

Without some committment to notify and update ALL US hams, we will end up just like Canada where it appears the vast majority of hams don't even know a recommended bandplan exists in RAC!

Jim
WA0LYK
It seems those who traditionally use the widest modes are in favor of non-regulation. A very small number of people supported the Think Tank proposal, and this makes it easy to search the callsigns or names and see the equipment and modes they use.

Do a Google search on callsigns and you can see why they want freedom to operate anywhere.

Operation without frequency and bandwidth limits is only good for 5-10% of our population, and bad for at least 50% of us.

They think bandplans work, yet when you read discussions no one thinks a band plan means very much.
Even think tank members proclaim the only thing they follow is part 97.

Duh. What were they thinking?

73 Tom

[AC0H]

Both RM-11305 and RM-11306 are bad news. 11306 may be one or two steps out of the gutter compared to 11305 but it still has severe problems that the ARRL claims will be solved or mitigated by quasi-official bandplans and "gentlemen's agreements".

Modes that are diametrically incompatible with sharing spectrum, such as wideband digital and just about anything else, need to be segregated.

[WA9SVD]

The only real (partial solution) is for the FCC to codify some semblance of a bandplan, and give it the force of law. The difficult part is aligning the "bandplan" with Amateur allocations and privileges world-wide. Obviously, the FCC mandating CW only in an allocation where Amateurs in other regions (or even in other countries) have phone or other mode access will lead to chaos.

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Feb. 11 2006,14:10)]The only real (partial solution) is for the FCC to codify some semblance of a bandplan, and give it the force of law. #The difficult part is aligning the "bandplan" with Amateur allocations and privileges world-wide. #Obviously, the FCC mandating CW only in an allocation where Amateurs in other regions (or even in other countries) have phone or other mode access will lead to chaos.
Why?

It's been like that since time began for amateur bands.

No one ever had a problem with the world not being aligned before on mode vs country, there is only a small problem now.

The only thing that will cause chaos is the FCC allowing wide modes to run any bandwidth they want any place they want. That will screw things up royally.

73 Tom

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ] The difficult part is aligning the "bandplan" with Amateur allocations and privileges world-wide. Obviously, the FCC mandating CW only in an allocation where Amateurs in other regions (or even in other countries) have phone or other mode access will lead to chaos.
You just don't hear that many complaints about the way things work now. Sure I'd love to be able to have a SSB QSO on 40m with some of my European bretheren, and that may happn when we get the broacasters vacated from 40m, but these proposals have nothing to do with anybody griping about spectrum misalignment.

11305 wants a Ham to be able to run whatever mode trips their trigger ANYWHERE the whim moves them.

11306 does at least try to restrict things by emitted bandwidth but it's HUGE flaw is allowing incompatible modes to mix, NO segregated areas where semi/auto PactorIII stations will not be allowed to operate.

W8JI's fairness ratio may be a little conservative as well.

From the submitted SPAR comments.

"Available statistics show Amateur mode use on HF today is estimated at 60% SSB use, 30% CW use, and 10% Digital use. Of the 10% of Digital users, it is estimated that 90% of them use narrow digital modes such as RTTY and PSK31. Estimates of wide band digital users on Amateur Radio today are at less than 1%. (Note: A survey published with RM-11305 confirms that overall digital use may be far less than 10% and more like 6%.)

As an example of the lack of fairness, the ARRL Petition (RM-11306) seeks to limit the 200Hz allocation in 40 Meters to 35 kHz (7.00 to 7.035). This would conceivably take nearly 40% of users (30% CW and an additional 9% for Narrow Band Digital users) and herd them into 35kHz of spectrum while allowing the remaining 1% of digital users over 60kHz of spectrum for 500Hz bandwidth applications."


It's questionable if the average appliance operator Ham out there would even have the means or skills to measure his/her bandwidth. How many thousands of Hams out there are running the FT-1000 series of HF radios? How many of them have done the modification to limit or elinimate the horrendous keyclicks associated with these radios? W8JI may know better than I but I'd say very few.

Imagine the same relatively ignorant Ham running one of the new wide digi modes in the middle of 20m SSB and his transmitter or modem get out of whack. This one station could easily render 10-25Khz of spectrum UNUSABLE and there would'nt be a darn thing anybody could do about it other than drive to the guy/gals place an physically pull the plug.

Hopefully the FCC will see that both of these suggestions are bad for the majority of Ham Radio and summarily dismiss them.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (w8ji @ Feb. 11 2006,15:14)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Feb. 11 2006,14:10)]The only real (partial solution) is for the FCC to codify some semblance of a bandplan, and give it the force of law. The difficult part is aligning the "bandplan" with Amateur allocations and privileges world-wide. Obviously, the FCC mandating CW only in an allocation where Amateurs in other regions (or even in other countries) have phone or other mode access will lead to chaos.
Why?

It's been like that since time began for amateur bands.

No one ever had a problem with the world not being aligned before on mode vs country, there is only a small problem now.

The only thing that will cause chaos is the FCC allowing wide modes to run any bandwidth they want any place they want. That will screw things up royally.

73 Tom
Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly, Tom. I pretty much agree with you. But without some teeth, (such as FCC rules) bandplans are only that: Plans, and too many either through ignorance or malice, do not follow the bandplans. And widepand operations, unless limited as to where they can operate, WILL wreak havoc on all of our HF bands.