I am all in favour of keeping amateur bands strictly amateur. (Don't start
me on about Winlink for example).
From what you say (which I did not previously know) a LF amateur band has
been specifically denied in USA . I would be interested to know what reasons
were given.....just tell me if there is a website tho'. because I value all the
technical material on this group and will not take up more off-topic
space.
My remarks about logs and renewals were just to demonstrate the
unreasonableness of govts. who insist upon restrictions which can be
demonstrated to serve no purpose by the fact that their absence has been shown
to be harmless in other, but stricly similar, societies.
I have licences and in fact operate HF on both sides of the pond
so I am in a position to compare and contrast.
I suppose I was triggered by Jim's remarks which drew for me a mental
picture of cringing cap-in-hand, forelock-touching approach to radio licence
restrictions . ..but I readily confess to having no experience.
Enough ! Weather has warmed up a touch so I'll be out there today with
cross-bow, fishing reel and a great tangle of wires to get up into
trees.!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 2:29
AM
Subject: Re: LF: Needless restrictions re
: Trans Atlantic
In a message dated 12/28/2004 1:12:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected]
writes:
But "They" have an implicit duty to regulate
only for some demonstrable universally desirable
purpose...
Many interesting philosophical discussions could arise from this, Bryan,
but I fear they would tend to be more off-topic than on, insofar as any
of it relates to trans-Atlantic activity. Logging and license renewal
are very different issues from the concept of various services within the
electromagnetic spectrum having their own established uses.
If you ask any administration why there are rules regarding
permissible communication, they will tell you exactly why. It is,
in effect, to keep the camel's nose out of the tent. Each service
is alloted spectrum based on the service's perceived value and the spectrum's
perceived value. These days, of course, that is skewed by corporate (and
sometimes government) greed. The only thing that keeps the biggest
bidders from taking ALL the spectrum is that sound arguments have been made
that each existing service serves a sufficiently unique function,
and therefore deserves the spectrum it has, at such-and-so price,
relative to other users of other spectrum.
The keyword here is "unique." If the distinctions between services
become blurred, that opens up all kinds of questions about the justifications
originally offered re: the creation of those services.
An analogy relating directly to the issue of permissible communication is
the limitation of third-party message handling in the amateur service.
Even though the telephone and telegraph companies no longer use HF to
handle commercial communication, if someone persuaded the regulators to allow
use of ham bands for third-party communications other than those
of a personal, non-commercial, and (in the words of some regulations)
"trivial nature," then we would not only be treading on commercial users'
toes, we would be inviting re-examination of the cash value of the
spectrum. Where big money is involved, any camel sticking its nose in
the tent risks its life.
I think most of us can see the reasons for rules that keep the amateur
service strictly amateur. The most universally applicable way to do that
is by restricting non-emergency communications to...whom? Other amateur
stations exclusively. (Except sometimes with special authorization, upon
showing of good cause, policies for which can vary widely by
administration.)
There's a further complication in the US with regard to the
Experimental Radio Service. One needs to remember that an amateur LF
band here has already EXPLICITLY been DENIED in a formal rulemaking
proceeding. The current ERS licensees are, it is hoped, providing data
that may be useful some day when the matter is considered again.
However, the FCC is understandably reluctant to let this become the amateur
service "camel's nose." If the Part 5 regulations were to be
abused, or such authorizations seen as being stretched beyond their original
purpose, they would have no choice politically but to give the camel a sound
smack.
(This, despite the principal occupant of the tent being the proverbial
dog in the manger. The electric utilities have no allocation status and have
never paid a cent in user fees for this spectrum, but because of the
"criticality" of their Fourth World carrier-current control systems and the
Homeland Security implications thereof, they can and do block other users from
making their home here.)
In short, US amateur activity at 2200m is a sensitive subject right now,
and, I suspect, not something whose future any of us would knowingly
risk.
Now, to stray just a little off topic:
In the USA no-one cares whether you keep a log
or not. The fabric of society in USA is not exactly crumbling because of the
absence of log-keeping rules.
You are more sanguine than I am about the fabric of society in the
USA. 8-)
Others might even go so far as to argue that you have cause and
effect reversed; namely, that the relaxation of logging requirements is a
symptom of decaying in our society. (Substitute "Morse code
requirements" in the preceding sentence, and I absolutely guarantee you would
hear such claims.)
John
