[BC] Re:Amateur Radio Spectrum

[r.j.carpenter]

QUOTE:

> I got out of the ham-as-a-hobby stuff when I was devoting too much
> time to it and I found that the new breed that were nothing more than
> licensed CBers, where the OM or YL with the biggest pockets bought
> the best and most powerful rig, had nothing in common with me. That
> doesn't mean that I disowned my ham-radio buddies. Now, when I want
> to talk to them, I go over to their house often by airplane.

I have no interest in the "licensed CBers" part of ham radio. There is a 
far more techmnologally oriented part.  I contend that there are about 
as many hams "doing something" than there ever were - it's just a much 
smaller fraction of the much larger total.

It has been my impression that few other services are interested in the 
spectrum occupied by amateur radio. That's probably why more spectrum 
below 30 MHz is being allocated for amateurs elsewhere around the world. 
The low-VHF ham bands may be of greater commercial interest - but 
generally for commercialized "old" technology. The high-VHF ham spectrum 
might be of considerably greater commercial interest with more-recent 
technology. Is trunked communication technology more efficient?

I see it "odd" that participant(s) in private (hobby) flying consider(s) 
ham radio to be inefficient. Aircraft radio has 108 MHz to about 138 MHz 
assigned to it, mostly used by ancient AM transmissions. (yes, I know 
why). There are many who consider private aviation to be a very 
inefficient use of airspace and the air traffic control system.

Perhaps I really shouldn't press "SEND" for this message. It should soon 
be off to AltFreq.

bob carpenter
(the original and present w3otc)