Greetings Walter....
............By all means let's have a RECOMMENDED bandplan but to start
moaning when somebody occupies the "wrong" slot for an hour or two in an
otherwise empty band is a bit rich.
I used to have a rather benign reaction to band planning, now I am a great
deal more sensitive to it. I have watched the American FCC Riley H.
seemingly bringing bandplanning forward as having official sanction the
Gov't will enforce. Now on a good day Gov't is barely acceptable here and
when I see this going on the warning bells start going off in a very loud
clammer.
My reaction is further enhanced when I look back on the Packet Radio when
we started that back in the mid 1970's. We had three different systems
here in Canada some years before the TAPR crowd started the TNC-1 and later
the TNC-2 with its variant of the X-25 protocol. Right after that got
rolling in the early 80's the "lets bring some standards and planning to
this process" people entered the scene and what became the huge bubble of
Packet Radio came and then very naturally died from lack of further
innovation. The innovation was killed by the "do gooders" and frankly I
have very little time for that crowd.
Our three Canadian packet radio system were able to talk to each other, we
even had a, what became later known as a Worm Hole, a satellite link from
Ottawa to Vancouver interconnecting two very different packet radio
systems, this was again, some years before TAPR had its brain wave for the
TNC-1.
My position is quite simple, until I see that Band Planning is really
benign I am basically against it, amateur radio is not in good health, we
desperately need innovation. Innovation is the only way forward for
amateur radio as I see it, anything that gets in the way of innovation is
just one more nail in the coffin. Since the packet radio experience I have
tended to move on quickly when the Standards and the Band Planners get into
the act. I hope there is room in LF for more innovation and not more
regimentation.
Larry
VA3LK
|
