On Dec 13, 2007 9:34 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The main reason I get this impression is in the responses from supporters of > the Region 2 bandplan, or regulation-by-bandwidth, I hear the term "chaos" > used to describe our present operations, and the term "channel" comes up > often, > and "we must do this for the future growth of ham radio", and the like.
My recollection of the whole digital mess was more a concern of unattended operation being allowed, along with puzzlement as to why we needed robots sending email over amateur frequencies, inevitably of a commercial nature in some way(s), not unlike the perceived need for BPL, to carry internet activity. The FCC has made clear that they don't want to be saddled with even more amateur regulations to enforce, and that they do not support the ARRL's desire to regulate in a way that stifles the experimental nature of amateur radio. Which leads us to terms like 'chaos', 'channel', and some dubious assertion that the bands are overcrowded, stressed to the point of breaking, and so on. As some have pointed out, lack of propagation from 20 through 10 meters has placed a large number of operators on 40, 75/80, and to a lesser extent - 160 meters. But the obvious (to me, at least) conflicts seem to arise from the issue of 'frequency ownership' for nets etc FAR more than the issue of available space to use. Just listen around the bands, anytime but during a contest. Plenty of space to use, with most folks jammed into certain portions of the band. Why? Because they've been there forever, had their net there since radio was invented, AM Window reserved for AMers only, and similar nonsense. We're losing licenesees faster than we are gaining them last time I checked. With a given percentage of people inactive, and fewer joining the ranks than leaving, where is the crisis the League sees? Beyond coming up with a working plan to coexist with digital transmissions, that is? So yes, it does appear they have tried to create a problem to solve, basically. And we're clear that, despite words by a few saying they wouldn't support such a thing, the ARRL has indeed pushed for regulation by bandwidth, in the very recent past. Which makes this an issue for Amateur Radio specifically, not just AM. More, as well as restrictive regulations have the real likelihood of impacting all amateurs in a negative way. ~ Todd, KA1KAQ ______________________________________________________________ Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net AMRadio mailing list List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:[email protected] To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body.
