| |
G0FTD > 40M 23.07.03 08:53l 134 Lines 5821 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 4A1402G0FTD
Read: DB0FHN GUEST
Subj: 40m and Aussie reasons
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0FSG<DB0GAP<DB0GPP<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0SWR<DB0FP<DB0GV<
DB0ZDF<DB0LJ<DB0RES<ON0AR<VE3FJB<IK1ZNW<GB7CRV<GB7CIP<GB7SXE
Sent: 030722/1828Z @:GB7SXE.#38.GBR.EU #:10024 [Hastings] FBB7.00i $:4A1402G0FT
From: G0FTD@GB7SXE.#38.GBR.EU
To : 40M@WW
I'm back after a few days away from home enjoying myself elsewhere :-)
I see much has been written on this subject and I'm still reading some of it.
Regretfully it seems to have gone downhill because many Australians have
started mud slinging and accusing other contributers of things which
only exist in their imaginations as opposed to sticking to investigating the
matter being talked about which is a shame.
My research has shown that the Australian contingent opposed all changes to
the 40m expansion on the basis of:
1) Radio Australia (R.A.) It has been said that R.A. has "significant"
investment in the 40m band. My *opinion* of this is that it is not.
Radio Australia has had it's budget reduced year upon year due to the lack of
demand for it's service and Australian Govt funding.
Reasons are that the need for HF broadcasting is in decline. One only needed
to compare HF Broadcasting coverage of Gulf War 1 to GW2 and you'll see
no one was interested. It's all done by TV and Satellite and other services
like the internet.
Radio Australia according to it's schedules appears to broadcast to the
vast majority of the world by satellite and cable services with little in
the way of significant HF broadcasting. It's current schedule shows that
only one frequency *relevent to this discussion* (7.240Mhz) is used for a few
hours a day to broadcast to the Pacific region.
Note that the Australian contingent originally opposed the expansion of even
7.000 - 7.200 which would NOT have affected R.A.
2) The Australian contingent wanted to oppose 40m amateur exansion in Region 1
because it wanted to see how HF broadcasting could be migrated into digital
form first. If they meant DRM then I think they are on a loser. DRM
exists only as a set of tests and as yet no one has taken it up properly
Knowing that the recent plethora of digital broadcasting media has all but
failed I personally have serious doubts as to if yet another attempt at such
a system is going to be classed as a failure in years to come.
The phrase flogging a dead horse springs to mind.
It may be of interest to know that my research into DRM receiving equipment
shows there IS NOT ANY. In fact the last time I looked into it fairly recently
showed that the only way to receive DRM *tests* was to purchase a licenced
codec from a German outfit for the PC and feed the modified (at your expense)
audio from your existing HF rx into it.
Lets be honest here - digital HFBC only exists as a few tests.
To wait for anything to happen on this issue might have confined us all
to another 55 years of inequality for Region 1 amateurs. And DRM might have
been all for nothing which I suspect it will be. HF broadcasting has declined
to the point no one needs it. The masses are not interested and never have
been. Listeners to HFBC are a minority of enthusiasts and this alone cannot
justify the frequency hogging by broadcasters.
In *my opinion* such a basis for an argument to veto Region 1 expansion of
40m was held little water.
It is quite ironic that Australia when referring to another allocation issue
they stated that it did not want to see it's frequency allocations changed on
the basis of "paper systems" and not real ones.
3) Impact upon fixed and mobile services.
If that meant the allocation below 7.00 RFDS then this could be justified.
However such an allocation was never really wanted by the amateur community
anyway. If we were to talk about fixed point links then I have grave doubts
that there would be any problems, after all if they are already using
and competing with Region 1's megawatts of broadcasters on their allocations
then I would suggest that by elimiating broadcasting megawatts and replacing
it with low powered amateur signals then this would be an IMPROVEMENT in
interference potential, and not an increase.
The nature of most fixed point links are usually running 10kw over NVIS
paths with little potential for external disruption.
Also what would have more interference potential, low power amateur signals
across the otherside of the world which only propagate for a short time of
the day if lucky or operators in the country concerned ?
It's also interesting to note countries who supported expansion of Region 1
allocations were:
Japan
The Republic of Korea
which I think we can conclude are a lot closer to Australia than Europe is.
Note:
All this information has come from the websites of the Australian
Communications Authority, Radio Australia, IARU and the Wireless Institute
of Australia.
They made the facts available, and I have every right to write about them.
Conclusion:
It is my own *personal* opinion that delegates/organisations from ANY
country can sometimes oppose changes based upon weak or false arguments. I
feel
the arguments I described above were weak and had they had any influence
could have meant inequality for another 55 years for Region 1 radio amateurs.
Althought it never happened it could have, and as such I feel it is imperative
that a strong guard should be made to endure that weak arguments do not get
a foothold. This means that those of us who really do care about our hobby
maintain a careful watch over those making the decisions or those who try to
influence them.
I started this thread to bring this to light.
ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
³ 73 - Andy ³
³ G0FTD ³
³ Psion Revo owner ³
³Msg sent 22-07-2003³
³ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³
³ ³ Û ³ ³
ÀÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÙ
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
