| |
G3ZXN > IARU 25.10.97 03:04l 110 Lines 4810 Bytes #-10190 (0) @ WW
BID : EB2078G3ZXN
Read: OE1RGC GUEST DK3EL
Subj: IARU - A Formal Proposal
Path: OE1XAB<OE3XPR<OE3XPR<HA1VH<HA5OB<HA3PG<OH7RBA<PE0MAR<PI8VNW<GB7PMB<
GB7MAX<GB7WRG<GB7BMX<GB7MSF<GB7ZXN
Sent: 971024/0205Z @:GB7ZXN.#18.GBR.EU #:12857 [Newcastle Upon Tyne] FBB7.00e
From: G3ZXN@GB7ZXN.#18.GBR.EU
To : IARU@WW
Greetings from sunny Newcastle Upon Tyne !
Since putting out my bulletin about the advantages to be gained by
changing from a 12.5KHz channel spacing to a 10KHz channel spacing
I have not seen a single bulletin sent to GBR arguing against the
points I made. I find that fact quite remarkable !
Accordingly, assuming this is not due to a breakdown in the network,
and that such lack of argument indicates the idea has merit, I wish
to formally propose that the VHF committee of the RSGB should consider
this proposal with a view to approaching other European colleagues to
get the decisions made at the last IARU Conference overthrown in favour
of a move to 20KHz channel spacing initially, and 10KHz channel spacing
at some time in the future.
The basis for this proposal is as follows :-
1. Most amateurs now possess equipment which is capable of either 5KHz
or 25KHz channel spacing. By the adoption of 12.5KHz channel spacing
this equipment is rendered obsolete and means that hundreds of
thousands of amateurs across Europe will have to buy new 2 metre
equipment to benefit from all the new channels.
By contrast, a move to 20 KHz channel spacing would provide one new
channel every 100 KHz and will require no modification of equipment
or new equipment to be bought, thus saving amateurs millions of pounds.
2. A move to 10 KHz channel spacing will mean that existing equipment can
be modified using filters obtainable from the USA and it can still be
used. It is not made obsolete as would happen with 12,5 KHz channel
spacing.
3. 10 KHz channel spacing provides more channels than 12.5 KHz channel
spacing.
4. When a further reduction in channel spacing becomes necessary,
going down to 6.25 KHz channel spacing will render 12.5 KHz equipment
obsolete involving even more unnecessary expense for amateurs to bear.
5. By contrast, future reduction from 10 KHz to 5 KHz channel spacing
will still be possible with existing equipment by the fitting of even
narrower filters. It will not be necessary for amateurs to spend
millions of pounds on new equipment yet again !!!
6. An eventual 5KHz channel spacing provides more channels than does
6.25 KHz channel spacing.
7. It is possible for amateurs to buy equipment far more cheaply in the
USA
whilst on holiday and import them as "personal imports". This can
offset considerably the cost of having the holiday in the first place.
This
USA equipment will not be compatible with European channel spacing, so
as a source of cheap equipment. the USA will be effectively stopped.
Such a move may be in the interests of equipment retailers but is not
in the best interests of radio amateurs, since we should be moveing
towards
world standardisation of specifications of equipment to bring prices
down still further due to increased volume production and to need not to
produce so many varied models of the same product.
8. The use of an "unusual" channel spacing compared to the rest of the
world could be seen as an excuse (valid or otherwise) to raise the
cost of equipment supplied to European Amateurs.
This cannot be seen as being in the interests of radio amateurs.
9. Radio amateurs are reluctant to spend money unnecessarily
(as they see it). The changeover from 25KHz to 12.5KHz is likely to
be messy because many amateurs will be unwilling to do so.
This will lead to an uneven changeover requiring decades before it
is achieved. The backward compatibility of 5KHz, 10KHz and 20KHz
channels makes this changeover far smoother and less painful.
10. It's a damn good idea, and it should NEVER be too late to adopt
a proposal that has sound technical merit. Bandplans should serve
the best interests of radio amateurs - not the other way round !!!
I hope, on reflection, these ideas will be perceived to have merit,
and I therefore formally submit this proposal to the committee of
the RSGB for consideration.
Unfortunately there are some people for whom the identity of the messenger
is far more important than the content of the message itself.
The Pro-Tem Chairman of the VHF committee of the RSGB has been heard to
boast that he never reads anything sent by G3ZXN. Would someone therefore
consider seconding this proposal and drawing it to his attention ?
Sadly, I do not think there is much chance of anything happening over this
proposal, but, since I believe it is in the best interests of amateur
radio
I felt that the least I could do was try...........
Best wishes,
Ernie, G3ZXN @ GB7ZXN.#18.GBR.EU
Message sent at: 01:47 hrs GMT on 24 Oct.1997
Why make life easy, when you can make it complicated and expensive
instead.
/QUACK
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
