At this point I'm tempted to holler "uncle!" I didn't intend to create a Red Scare by suggesting that if we use our bands inefficiently, we will eventually lose some of them. But let me offer a concrete example.

The maritime service has HF channels set aside for Morse telegraphy, narrow band direct printing (SITOR, which is essentially the same as AMTOR) and voice. Utilization of Morse and NBDP is way down. So as the various HF services between 4 and 10 MHz jockey to protect their turf against HF BC expansion, there is some creative thought being given to the question of how to get these maritime frequencies included on the WRC-07 agenda (arguably they're presently excluded) so that at minimum, some compatible sharing can be arranged to accommodate some of the fixed and mobile requirements that will be displaced by any HF BC expansion.

The only HF maritime activity that's growing is -- guess what -- voice bandwidth digital data. But the present maritime service channelization scheme doesn't easily accommodate it.

Having said that, I have to admit that it's inappropriate to play the "spectrum protection" card in connection with the bandwidth proposal.

Dave K1ZZ

-----Original Message-----
From: arrl-odv
Sent: Thu 4/21/2005 4:44 PM
To: arrl-odv
Cc:
Subject: [arrl-odv:12132] Re: The EC Allocation by Bandwidth Proposal

I am very much in favor of taking a progressive approach to spectrum management and I want us to file a bandwidth petition -- though controversial among the special-pleaders, I think it's the right way to go. However, I don't see how rules that in principle open up areas of heretofore digital/CW spectrum to SSB operation represent a progressive outcome. Reliance on voluntary band plans, developed by a process that has not been defined by us let alone accepted by the Amateur community, is a leap of faith broader than I am willing to undertake happily at this time.

Of course everybody is in favor of spectrum protection. But like raising the specter of communism during the Cold War and the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, invoking "spectrum protection" to gain favor for a proposal may cause temporary by-pass of our higher brain functions, producing support for things that may or may not be such good ideas taken on their own merits. The threats (communism, terrorism, WMD, spectrum loss) are real. Whether or not they are close-coupled to the case on the table at a particular time is another thing.

I speak from personal experience here, having once been persuaded to vote for a motion that intellectually I did not approve of because Larry Price very effectively played the "spectrum protection" card in his speech in support of the motion. That's the one vote I cast as a Director that I wish I could take back and do over.

Well, there are no do-overs when you've voted to spend a large amount of money on something, as I did, and there won't be any do-overs if we vote to allow voice operations to go where they can't go now and have no effective way to protect the experimental digital modes we intended to promote. Curbing voice operations would be likened to taking away privileges, and we know where that road goes.

73 - Kay N3KN