From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL SNAFU
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:46:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Aug14.124646.8781
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <713589494.F00002@iea.FidoNet.Org> Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend) writes:
>
> PF> Both of these assertions are clearly proven false by 
> PF> the repeater coordination
> PF> experience.   You've also asserted that only the 
> PF> interests of the operators
>
>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.

Repeater coordination is, in general, very effective, except maybe in 
certain instances on the left coast. In general, the *user* community
is very well served by repeaters. It's true that not every Tom, Dick,
and Harry can get his callsign on a 2 meter repeater, but he can find
repeaters that he can *use*. That's a remarkable system that's served
us very well, and all through voluntary action.
 
[deleted]
> PF> Again, nothing I've proposed is significantly different 
> PF> from existing Amateur
> PF> practices, and the proposals reflect the needs of the amateur community 
> PF> at large.
>
>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.

Well, of course we do know of one large organization whose name is 4
letters who fire up their shortwave broadcast transmitters without
listening for a clear frequency. Now I don't think that amateurs
should *own* any frequency, at least not in a legal sense. With
packet, however, channel usage is strictly time shared. If  small 
subbands are restricted to packet *only*, I don't see how there could 
be a problem. Packet stations automatically listen to the channel
before transmitting. Collisions can occur, but doubling is not unknown
with manual modes either.

>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?

I don't know how Paul sees this, but my feeling is that if automatic
packet is restricted to a small subband, it would not be *gentlemanly*
to use CW in that segment. I don't think it's necessary to make it 
illegal, however, because the packet stations would quickly regain
the frequency from any CW operator except an intentional jammer.

>It certainly is true also that on the HF amateur bands that any attempt to
>limit use of a frequency be coordinated internationally. 

In most of the world, automatic packet stations are *not* forbidden on
HF frequencies. Many can setup an automatic forwarding system *anywhere*
in the ham bands that they like. This rule would serve only to place 
*additional* restrictions on packet stations in the US. Like our frequency
restrictions on General Class phone operators, it's a benefit to the
rest of the world rather than a cause of harm. We didn't try to coordinate
Incentive Licensing with the rest of the world, I don't see any reason
to do so in this case either.

Gary KE4ZV