| |
OZ1DKE > IARU 22.11.96 02:18l 58 Lines 2510 Bytes #-10623 (0) @ EU
BID : 3925_OZ1DKE
Read: DL5MHK DL1EEC GUEST DK3EL
Subj: Re: Revision of 145 MHz Bandplan
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0SON<DB0ERF<DB0DNI<DK0MNL<DF0HMB<DB0HES<OZ7BOX<
OZ6PAC<OZ7BBS
Sent: 961121/1702Z @:OZ7BBS.#KRP.JYL.DNK.EU #:15706 [Karup, JO46NG] FBB5.15c
From: OZ1DKE@OZ7BBS.#KRP.JYL.DNK.EU
To : IARU@EU
OZ1DKE/TPK 1.81 Msg #:3925 Date:21-11-96 Time:17:00Z
Hello friends.
This message is triggered by some notes in a document originating from
IARU, which had the above subject.
Can anyone please give me a well reasoned argument for why we should abandon
network access to packet radio on 2m?
The reasons I have heard so far stinks of lobbyism in the direction of:
"Those silly radioamateurs are not making money on all that bandwidth. Why
don't we 'guide' them in a direction where we can claim that they don't use
it so we can get the frequencies instead so we can earn good money on it."
Who 'we' are must be fairly obvious.
One of my friends have access to a fairly good spectrum analyzer which he
used throughout a full week for monitoring the low end of 2m (144.0 -144.5).
He saw NO activity as far as his antenna system could reach. This means to
me that if someone not-so-friendly inclined towards amateur radio did the
same he could with good reason state the above. Agree?
If we then remove all packet traffic (yes I mean all - you don't believe
that people who have been 'forced' to get hold of radios for other bands to
stay in touch with their BBS, would switch to 2m just to have a
keyboard-to-keyboard QSO?) we would in effect have only beacons left below
145 - the 'traffic pressure' by a relatively low amount of SSB/CW stations
and beacons will count as nil in the eyes of the governments 'providing' us
with the frequencies. Where did 144 MHZ go??
Why don't we look across 'the pond' to see what happened to 220-225 MHz in
USA? Or 13cm for that sake?
No, my friends. Usage is the only weapon we have to keep our bands.
If that means supporting modes that one basically dislikes then be it that
way but by all means: GET THE USAGE LEVEL UP!!!
I also fail to see the reasons behind placing 'low-density' traffic on the
edges of our bands. My reasoning: low traffic density in the eyes of those
waiting to snatch 'our' bands means no usage. I don't think I need to paint
that one on the wall...
If we turn our eyes to several animal species, in time of danger they round
up with the young and unprotected in the centre (SSB, CW etc.) and then
they place bulls and strong females (packet, FM voice) at the edge... See my
point?
I hope to get a good debate going on this (flames not considered either
good or debate!) and would like some replies on this.
Vy 73 de OZ1DKE, Jan - SysOp @ OZ7BBS.#KRP.JYL.DNK.EU
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
