On 3/1/02 2:40 PM, K4SB at k4sb@mindspring.com wrote:
>Bill Coleman wrote:
>Do we push for the FCC to adopt the existing ARRL band plan?
Did I write that? I think you're quoting something I quoted. *I*
certainly don't think we need more regulations.
>I've tried to stay out of this, but a couple of the comments Bill
>either said or quoted bother me a little.
Please distinguish the things I said from the things I quoted.
>First of all, I have never seen or heard of any "enforcement action"
>by the FCC, and if I just missed it, I'd like a general summary.
There's two issues. One was an enforcement action brought in September
2001 by the FCC against a group who was operating an SSB net low in the
band (I think 1823 kHz, if memory serves). They were charged with willful
interference, and lack of compliance with the bandplan was a factor in
determining the nature of the interference.
Some misconstrue this as the FCC enforcing the bandplan -- that's not
what they did. However, just as in repeater frequency conflicts -- those
operators who are in general compliance with the established agreements
between amatuers (for repeaters -- the coordinating bodies) have a leg up
on those that do not.
Another enforcement action was brought against an operator of a PA
station who was working split on 40m. He was cited for willful
interference because of the disruption of operations on his TX frequency.
>And I
>emphatically would like to see these veiled "threats" of enforcement
>by Hollingsorth cease. In the first place, I ( or anyone ) may operate CW
>or SSB anywhere in that 200 kc spread, and if I choose to operate SSB
>on 1820, that is my priviledge and my right, and there is absolutely
>nothing the FCC can do about it under current rules.
So long as you don't cause intentional interference with other
operations, you are absolutely correct.
However, the wise amatuer avoids trouble. Complying with the bandplan
helps to avoid problems with operations in other modes.
> I don't of course
>do this, but it is out of consideration for others, not because I
>can't.
Exactly.
>Secondly, for the life of me, I just cannot understand the ARRL plan,
>do not support it, and will not abide by it. The ARRL does not govern
>my license, the FCC does, and I'll do what they say I am allowed to.
Well, Ed, you'd be wise to understand the band plan. If you run afoul of
an intentional interference problem, your ignorance of the band plan
could be used against you.
>Lastly, for the life of me, I simple cannot understand why, with a
>band 200 kc wide, we or anyone else are in a frenzy about the bottom
>43. In my view, if a band plan were to be implemented, let's just give
>either the bottom 100 or 1900-2000 to either CW or SSB, and let it go
>at that.
Ed, if everyone in the world had full access to the 200 kHz, there would
be little problem. However, despite the fact the many EU countries have
widened access in the last several years, many, countries are restricted
to frequencies low in the band. 1810-1850 kHz is the "sweet spot" that
intersects with most countries.
>Personally, I'd rather see the top 100 go to CW. Antennas are shorter,
>and by definition, long haul work is slightly better, as is noise. And
>for those who say, "what about the dx allocations?", if they cannot
>live with it because of their limits, then they can simply work split,
>which is what we're trying to get them to do in the first place.
This is the first time I seen anyone give the argument that the CW guys
are the ones who should work split....
>OK, some few, probably less than 100 in the entire world are going to
>have to retune those hugh towers. For the rest of us, we just clip off
>a couple of feet on each end of the dipole, or shorten the vertical.
>
>In essense, why in the world are we arguing about 43 kc when we have
>200 kc of space available?
160m has some unique characteristics. One certain is the DX allocations.
The next is the weak signal characteristics of 160m. CW generally has an
edge here, although modern low-bandwidth digital modes (like PSK31)
should exceed CW. Since 160m is limited by noise, low-bandwidth
modulations are superior for DX work.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
|