Why do you think it is prohibited in other leading aviation countries for pilots to make announcements on ATC frequencies that are also used for aircraft separation?
Traffic density might have something to do with it. Possibly the prohibition of the re-broadcasting that saves ASA's dollars but amplifies the risk of over transmission. Possibly because they have lots of other good ideas and more staff to implement them.
Why did the origional NAS documentation make it clear that announcements were not to be made on ATC frequencies ?
Probably something to do with the authors' perceptions and experiences.
Its all about offering a system that does not have design flaws that could lead to an unnecessary accident .
No. What you are suggesting appears to me to be aimed at reducing the infinitesimal risk of a major collision involving an RPT aircraft (500 deaths) that might occur at the higher altitudes in which they fly, but below 10,000, due to a momentary over-transmission which must clearly occur despite the RPT's radar and collision warning systems. It also seems to me that your proposal sacrifices the safety afforded the "littlies" that occurs by allowing them communications that will alert them to traffic operating outside the usual radius of
known CTAFs (those marked on a chart of some sort).
How else would you suggest we get commonsense to prevail?
By bringing everyone down off their hobby horses and listening to the major proponents put their cases,,, it's called industry consultation.
Kaz