2 June 1994
Norman McLeod
That's how the CB users do frequency planning. Make contact in the first instance on the calling channel, then nominate one of the other 39 frequencies to carry on your chat.
It's a completely autonomous, self- organising system which caters for a pool of users with a pool of frequencies one of which they may want to use for a short period at a time. If you have interference on one channel, you hop up or down until you find a clear opening. The same self-assignment practice also applies (within agreed band-plans) on the amateur radio bands.
A similar administration-free policy works for cordless telephones - the eight channels for analogue cordless phones are assigned at random as the sets come out of the box. Some new units offer the option of switching frequencies around to find the clearest one at your location now that the channels are becoming heavily loaded, but the basic principle of self- management applies.
The reason why these arrangements are in place is that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to organise things any other way. With many thousands of users spending less than 100 each on equipment, the paperwork involved in formally planning everyone's frequency use would cost far more than the sets themselves, which is crazy. The simplest thing to do is to set the technical limits within which legal operation can take place, award a pool of frequencies to the service, and let the users sort them out amongst themselves.
More sophisticated sets, such as cellular telephones, find and assign themselves clear frequencies totally automatically, without the user even being aware of the process.
The examples I have so far discussed are the most dramatic examples of self-management, but in fact these days more than 50% of the total number of radio licences (for various purposes) issued by the Radiocommunications Agency are handled by contracted-out bodies looking after the interests of specific user groups. In general this works well.
I have always been struck, for instance, by the very cost-effective and efficient way in which ASP handle link frequency licences. Four weeks' use of a link frequency is usually a very straightforward matter of telling them what you want and where and when you want it, and sending off a cheque for 160. Compare that with the cost and rigmarole involved in getting the DTI to award a frequency in the broadcast band in similar circumstances.
Now the Radio Authority has decided to opt for Option D for using 105 - 108 MHz. Although the majority of submissions (250 out of 450) favoured some form of small-scale radio development, only a third of the new spectrum (107 - 108 MHz) is now specifically assigned to that purpose.
But within that slice of spectrum, there could be as many would-be operators as there are at the moment in all the local radio sub- bands put together. I wonder if there would be any mileage in the idea that - as Annan put it years ago "a different animal needs a different keeper".
Were legislation to recognise a new layer of broadcasting intermediate between current RSL's and eight- year full-time licences, a fair and independent body sorting out frequency assignment in this sector might be able to streamline the process to the satisfaction of users and Government alike.
Any readers wishing to comment on what I have said are welcome to call me on 01 273 684 172 or send e-mail to normac@fastnet.co.uk
Copyright NJ McLeod 1995