Todd, KA1KAQ ka1kaq at GMAIL.COM
Mon Feb 6 10:58:43 EST 2006

On 2/5/06, Peter A Markavage <pmarkavage at juno.com> wrote:
> So why don't you just tell them to retain Section 97.221 of the rules
> (keeps Winlink for moving from their designated area)

Not a bad idea, Pete. Other than the automated/unattended email part, that is.

> There are no AM restrictions; they just defined a max bandwidth of 9 KHz.

More accurately, AM's definition is handled as a special 'exception'
rather than a 'rule'. While it doesn't appear as a restriction today,
it makes it a whole lot easier to add later by either changing the
exception, or removing it all together.

> FCC has already indicated current rules stifle experimentation with new
> modes so they're out to make changes.

I'm not sure how this is so, other than requiring some Type Acceptance
or approval from them. Hams have experimented for decades on HF as
well as above, with no ill affects. In cases where more-than-normal
intereference could be encountered (packet comes to mind), it appears
to have been tested on the under-utilized VHF/UHF spectrum before
turning it loose in the HF spectrum. Just an observation on my part,
mind you.

Particularly with the ARRL's request for loosening or removing the
need for attended operation, a case could be made for putting it all
into an area of spectrum up there, instead of the most densely
populated and used HF bands. Maybe it could share 220 space with UPS?

> You can also express your opinion for RM-11305, any mode, any where; i.e.
> jungle law or can you picture FM transmissions on 75 meters.

We already have 'jungle law', Pete. Just listen on the phone portions
of 75 any night, or 40 and above most days. Much of it results from
too many operators trying to share too little space, while large
chunks of the bands sit idle, if not entirely empty. If anything,
opening up the bands to phone (SSB as well as AM) would reduce the
level of problems by allowing all users to share the same space,
instead of giving preferential treatment to some specific group(s).
RM-11305 is the first proposal I've seen that tries to get us in step
with the rest of the world's amateur operators. As someone pointed out
in another venue, even Cuba is less restrictive when it comes to
frequency access.

Or is your real feeling that US hams aren't capable of enjoying the
same use of frequency spectrum the rest of the world uses, without
having someone dictate to them how and where to operate and how to
behave? Why are we restricted from using subbands while our neighbors
to the north can be heard there regularly?

> Of course, some may not care to help define the future of the Amateur
> Radio Service.

If the future of amateur radio in the US is one of increased
regulation and the push of automated digital services over actual
human communications, we have no future. Rather than trying to
regulate every little aspect in favor of someone's favorite mode or
the group that will bring in more money to the Newington coffers, why
not institute fewer regulations (many of which are obsolete or
unnecessary in today's world) and allow the FCC to spend their time
enforcing rules that affect everyone? Rather than 'more government' in
some hope of instilling the correct behavior on the bands, why not put
the responsibility where it belongs - with the individual operator?
It's a whole lot easier to prove intentional interference than to
prove someone's signal was .2khz too wide.

What we need are regulations that treat all modes equally instead of
penalizing the majority in favor of the minority, and make the
individual accountable at the same time. It's amateur radio after all,
not an extension of the wireless internet. Despite the temporary
increase in cash for the ARRL that their suggested changes are clearly
designed to bring in, if approved we will see the commercialization of
our bands that has been predicted for years, via the backdoor,
courtesy of the Amateur Radio Retail Lobby.

de Todd/'Boomer'  KA1KAQ

This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona

Subscription control - http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.asp?list=BOATANCHORS
Archives - http://listserv.tempe.gov/archives/BOATANCHORS.html

More information about the Boatanchors mailing list