At the bottom of all this, Mike, is the golden rule of amateur radio:
never transmit on a frequency that is already in use. Whether we
individually agree or disagree with the decision, the IARU, ARRL, and
FCC (via its STAs for the US-based beacons) authorized the creation
of the beacon network on 5 HF frequencies. As a result, these 5
frequencies are always in use; thus operators should avoid
transmitting on them except under emergency conditions.
Given the function of the beacon network, occasional outages due to
QRM from those ignorant of its frequency allocations is no big deal.
A polite email reminder addressed to this group and the RTTY
reflector prior to major RTTY contests would be far more effective
and collegial than a public pillory after the fact. If someone
happens to notice an operator frequently QRMing a beacon, then they
should make a phone call or send a private email message --
just as they would if they noticed key clicks or splatter.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], Michael Keane K1MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> At 03:44 PM 9/26/06, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> >So my longwinded answer to your question, Bill, is the human
operator
> >is at fault, as he or she is ignoring the band plan.
>
> Given normal circumstances, I'd certainly agree with you, Dave.
>
> But a more relevant question might be this: would there be any
fault
> to be assigned for non-compliance with a band plan at those times
> when the band plan is not appropriate to the situation?
>
> The ARRL has indicated that band plans are not intended to address
> atypical situations, such as major contests. As a consequence, I
> think it's unrealistic to expect strict and universal compliance
with
> the IARU band plans in a situation for which those plans were not
> designed to apply. I'd have to expect some lesser degree of
> compliance from hams who pay attention to what the IARU
headquarters
> society has told us.
>
> As hams we all utilize the same spectrum and we need to plan how
best
> to share this common resource. But our planning currently does
allow
> for flexibility. Having an endorsed band plan does not establish
> exclusive enclaves which are inviolate. To view a band plan as a
> rigid absolute, compliance with which is mandatory is not
productive
> and ultimately divisive, as that view leads to increased
frustrations
> and causes more conflicts as opposed to resolving them.
>
> 73,
> Mike K1MK
>
> Michael Keane K1MK
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
