Topband: RM 11305/11306

[Tom Rauch]

> Not entirely. The Think Tank guys make a good point in
that
> the most optimum spectrum allocation scheme is a dynamic
> one.

I disagee totally Mike. We have to look at the real world in
detail. Dynamic allocations only improve things when:

1.) Everyone hears everyone else's signal clearly and
understands it regardless of mode
2.) Absolutely everyone, and that means 100% of the
operators, has good manners and respect for every other mode
or operation
3.) Everyone understands how wide they are, and how their
signals affect other people's receivers, and operates with
that in mind
4.) The bands are so crowded we can't fit everyone in a
given regulated mode slot

Anything short of that, and dynamic allocations add needless
problems.

>You sort of see that during contests when spectrum that
> normally isn't used for a particular mode fills up (40
meter
> phone down to 7015 KHz during CQ WW SSB and 10
> meter CW up to 28150 during a high sunspot CQ WW CW).

Good example of why we should avoid it. 160 SSB contests are
another good example of how it ruins things.

> KHz. The only way to make it work would be to put some
> teeth into the voluntary bandplans. The national societies
> would set the bandplans, but FCC could step in a rule in
> the event that one of the aforementioned miscreants was
> thumbing his or her nose at everyone by doing something
> troublesome just for the sake of being a jerk.

>From 26.5 to 28MHz you can hear full deregulation at work.
Anyone can do nearly anything. The only thing that separates
1.8 MHz from that band are regulations that are enforceable
and that people fear. It isn't what we think should work
that matters, it is what happens in the real world that
matters.

How are those deregulated utilities working Mike? Why would
radio be any different? We better get the FCC to do
something sensible, or none of will be enjoying 160 when the
no-code hits.

73 Tom