John has it exactly right. Band plans come from historical use. They do NOT come from some fiat as Bonnie has been fantasizing with her personal make believe "bandplan."
You do not have one person, or even a group, decide a bandplan based on whim. It is based upon how the great majority of operators actually operate over a fairly lengthy period of time and reasonable people form a consensus that makes sense to that great majority. If you do not, the bandplan will be completely ignored since it is only a guide or suggestion. To even suggest that there should be some kind of a new bandplan for 80 meters at this time is about as absurd as it gets. Once we have the congestion, and at times it will be extreme, things will sort out and perhaps in a few years we will have a better understanding of what suggestions can be made for operating guidelines. Even then, when nets need to operate, they will try their best to operate, and when a contest comes along, those operators will try to operate and likely spread way out over the sub band. When I want to operate casually, I will likely operate in an area that I have previously found operation that I am interested in. In the past I tried to refer to bandplans and recommended frequencies for various modes here in the U.S.. But I have not been paying much attention to this anymore since much of it gravitates toward a historical pattern. With phone and CW, it is fairly easy and really doesn't need any plan since we have the higher speed ops down toward the bottom of the band in the Extra area. As you move up you often find slower operators. Eventually, you will find some narrow band digital modes (PSK31) and then above that will be the wider modes and often above that will be an RTTY area. At least this has been my experience. 73, Rick, KV9U John Bradley wrote: >And why would hams from outside the US want to do this? We just got rid a >whole bunch of rules and regulations >regarding band plans,emission types etc etc, and so far things are going well > >This would be a huge step backwards for the ITU and most other countries who >adhere to a voluntary band plan, which is also >based on historical useage. This historical use will likely not change on 80M >with the new US rules. RTTY and other modes >will still be found above 3600, maybe even more since the band will be crowded >between 3500 and 3600. The big difference for us will with the Canadian >SSB nets which normally occupy 3725 to 3750, which will now be open to US ham >SSB check-ins. > >My recommendation would be to fire all the lawyers on both the FCC and ARRL >sides, and let some common sense prevail. > >John >VE5MU > > Subject: [digitalradio] Band Plans > > > > The only way that this issue is going to be solved is for the ITU to step in > and set up band plans for each mode/bandwidth on each band more especially on > the HF bands. I am not sure how often the ITU meets, every 3-5 years. Every > country should have a member and provide input from their amateur operators. > I believe most all countries have an origination very much like the ARRL here > in the US. They could provide that member with the request/recommendation and > come up with a plan that we all could live with > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/579 - Release Date: 12/7/2006 > >
