RadioBanter - View Single Post - FUD ALERT !!!!! (was With CW gone, can the CW allocations be far behind?)

July 28th 03, 07:10 PM

(Stu Parker) wrote:
On 27 Jul 2003 13:09:25 -0800, Floyd Davidson wrote:

It is not a reasonable argument. It has logical and technical
flaws which make that particular commentary quite worthless.

"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Stu Parker wrote:

But the point is well-taken. If CW is to be removed as a
*requirement* for a ham license, then its special status has
evaporated.

That is an absurd statement which cannot be supported logically.
(It says: The apples are ripe, so lets pick the oranges today.)

A false analogy, probably based upon emotion.

Yeah, sure. That's what all the following technical discussion
was about.

You weren't logical in the original, and this response is no
more so. Look at your response... nothing _but_ emotion.

All that has happened is that CW has changed its status from a
separately tested requirement, to being one of many modes which
random questions on the written exam will refer to. That change
affects the *testing* only; it has *nothing* to do with the

The act of dropping the Morse code requirement completely is an
official, multinational assertion that CW no longer retains its
favored status.

CW no longer retains favored status as a *testing requirement*.

Don't believe that CW has had a long tradition of having favored
status? Then reread the history of amateur radio. From being the
mode favored by international treaty, to being the only mode that US
hams were allowed to use on 40 meters until 1952, amateur radio
history is full of examples of CW's most favored status.

You are once again mixing the apples with the oranges.

Now, all of that has changed.

At the moment, CW operators are "protected" from phone operators, but
the reverse is not the case.

As noted previously, so are RTTY and other narrow band digital
modes, and it has *nothing* to do with the testing requirement
and everything to do with technical issues.

With the deemphasis of CW, the old
situation is clearly inequitable, because the old claim that
"international agreements demand the band restrictions" is rapidly
becoming false.

What "old claim" is that? I've never heard of any such claim,
and you are fabricating it just as you fabricated the above claim
that CW is "the mode favored by international treaty".

CW *testing* was required previously, and now is not. That is
all that has changed.

There is a new reality quickly developing, and heated, emotional
claims which attempt to preserve tradition for its own sake just
aren't going to work.

A new reality quickly developing? Where have you been for the past
30 years as this slowly cooked?

I'll bet my farm that THE BAND PLANS ARE GOING TO BE REEXAMINED over
the next several years. Ignore the coming debate, and wind up having

Of course the band plans are going to be reexamined. That is a
continuous process that is *always* going on, and has been in
the past just as it will be in the future.

Technology changes. Jeeze, when I first got into ham radio everyone
was worried to death that we'd lose everything. That was the influence
of the WWII shutdown. But look what has been going on for the past
30 years now! Amateur Radio allocations in the HF region have been
expanded. (And now the pressure is on in the microwave regions, that
were once basically undesirable.)

others decide your band allocations for you. Engage in the debate,
and you just may stand a chance of making a difference.

Engage in debate! You are engaging in emotionalism. Start using
facts and figures instead of scare stories.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)