John,

What I am saying is that the ham bands should be the same world wide. Everyone 
is not going to like it but then you can't please any 10 people on anything.

Joe

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Bradley 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 1:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Band Plans



  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



   

Reply via email to