From: Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: ARRL SNAFU
Date: 14 Aug 92 04:54:21 GMT

In a message of <13 Aug 92>, Paul Flaherty wrote to All:

 PF> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy

 PF> Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend) writes:


>It is *also* true that you will find *no* rule by the FCC as to 
coordination of
>VHF Digital.  Repeaters are a special case and I would contend that 
their
>co-ordination is less than totally effective.

 PF> I'd suggest that you dig up a copy of part 97, and read through 
 PF> 97.205(b),
 PF> which defines the subbands for repeater operation. And, take note of 
 PF> the
 PF> fact that repeater operation and subbanding is defined for HF, as 
 PF> well as
 PF> for VHF and UHF.  As to the efficacy of coordination, problems are 
 PF> the
 PF> exception rather than the rule, and I say that living in a region 
 PF> where
 PF> every channel under 900 MHz is currently allocated.

As I said VHF digital.  Every channel under 900 Mhz in the repeater subbands I
will buy.  In all other segments I won't.  Packet is not repeaters as they are
currently defined. 


>Enforcement by the FCC an additional burden to them.

 PF> That's an existing burden, the content restrictions.  Subbanding 
 PF> would make
 PF> that burden easier (though not as easy as getting rid of the content 

 PF> restrictions).

There is no current burden on Packet or Digital as there aren't any subbands
other than by gentlemen agreements other than the band which extends from
14.000 to 14.150 for example.  There aren't any restrictions within large band
segments.
>Once I understood that your proposal was limited to WARC bands I had 
no major
>problem with it in general, however, I am not convinced that it 
serves the
>Amateur Community at large. As to current amateur practice.  It is 
currently
>the accepted amatuer practice on HF, with a couple of exceptions 
that the
>*amateur* determine if the frequency is in use before transmitting, 
and that
>no-amateur, group or station *own* a frequency.

 PF> You've neglected 10m FM, for starters, which is in fact HF.  The 
 PF> distinction
 PF> you're making with respect to HF versus VHF operation is based 
 PF> largely in
 PF> tradition; clearly new operations like UAA data links have no chance 
 PF> in
 PF> such an environment where "everything is already taken".

NO.  10M FM are REPEATERS.  Only REPEATERS have any differences and then only
in what *I* consider VHF segments.  Above 29 Mhz.


>A question.  Does your proposal limit use of a frequency to any 
other Amateur?
>E.g. if I happen to wander down to xx.xxx and fire off a CQ on say 
CW would
>that be a violation of the rules as you would propose?

 PF> If yo like to operate FM simplex on the input of a repeater, this is 
 PF> not
 PF> a violation of Parth 97 explicitly.  However, this clearly falls 
 PF> outside
 PF> the domain of Good Amateur Practice, as defined in 97.101.  This is 
 PF> the
 PF> model to use for HF UAA operations; the FCC should not (and cannot by
 PF> 97.101(b) ) allocate a particular frequency to any station; this 
 PF> should
 PF> be left to the coordinating body.

You see here you are again.  HF Digital isn't much like a repeater.  And
certainly if you operate FM Simplex on a repeater input you are in violation of
the rules.  Works fine on Repeaters.  Generally they are in the Vhf spectrum
and you know where they are located.  The problem is in HF spectrum where there
is a heck of a lot less room.  However, I think your idea of WARC bands would
eliminate a lot of the problems.


 * Origin: Radio Therapy BBS (1:346/3)