"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Stu Parker wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:16:40 GMT, Carl R. Stevenson

wrote:

[snip]

Go ahead. Pick at nits. We all know what he meant.

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. Why give it any band-plan perks at all? CW operators can
already operate in the phone bands (most of them don't, but that's a
free choice), so why not accord the phone users the same freedom of
choice?

I'd be in favor of reserving a very small portion of each HF band for
rtty, psk31, etc., but I'd let all modes permitted by an operator's
license be used everywhere else.

In other words, it is legitimate and useful to reevaluate the entire
band-plan structure of the Amateur Radio Service, and it is even
thinkable that what is commonly called the "cw portion" of the bands
should be reallocated.

Well, Carl, here is a well thought out and well presented argument.
Your answer?

- Mike KB3EIA -



I have previously voiced my view that I do NOT favor phone band
expansion, as the CW/data portions would be over-run with SSB.

That would thwart the development of new digital modes and IMHO,
be a bad thing.

Okay, I was hoping for a little more than just that though. Because if
someone comes up with that argument, and your answer is simply that it
would thwart development, well then guess who is going to win?

- Mike KB3EIA -


You folks act as if CW has died and is being buried by everyone in the whole
world. I hate to break it to you but there is a LOT of activity on CW. And
will continue to be for YEARS.

Just because the testing has been dropped is no reason think CW is not going
to be used. I foresee a increase in activity actually. As the phone bands
pile up with more and more CBisms the only recourse will be digital and/or
CW. There will continue to be CW contesting, DXCC CW only, County
hunting...etc..etc.

And I guarantee you a CW signal is a lot less bothered by phone interference
than a phone signal is by CW.

Just stay up on the high end of the bands, and leave us alone.

Deal?

Dan/W4NTI

Floyd Davidson ) writes:
(Stu Parker) wrote:

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.

This reminds me of the time Marconi spanned the Atlantic. I remember
he told his assistant "I'm not going to wait until voice modulation
is invented, because I want to give morse code favored status".

Then twenty years later, when hams spanned the Atlantic with shortwaves,
they all said "let's not use that newfangled voice stuff, because
we want to give morse code a favored status". Obviously, Howard
Armstrong who we have to "blame" for all the receivers we use even
today, must have been part of that conspiracy to keep AM in it's place,
since he was part of one of the official transmitting sites for
the attempt.

Of course, there were all those hams in the early days who used
only morse code because they wanted to give it favored status.
It's a myth that they used it because a cw transmitter was simpler
and less expensive.


Let's not forgot OSCAR 1, launched in December of 1961. Those
guys obviously had it send morse code because they wanted to give
the mode favored status.

Michael VE2BVW

From what I heard, (from a posting on QRZ) the NCVEC group
yesterday filed a petition with the FCC to abandon CW testing.

The petition, unfortunatly, makes no provisions to preserve CW
subbands...

"Mike Yetsko" wrote in message ...
From what I heard, (from a posting on QRZ) the NCVEC group
yesterday filed a petition with the FCC to abandon CW testing.

The petition, unfortunatly, makes no provisions to preserve CW
subbands...

Mike,

What CW subbands?

I just read the thing on QRZ.com, and it looks to me like all the
NCVEC wants to do is dump Element 1 and allow Techs who have not
passed a code test to have the same HF privs as Novices and Techs who
have passed a code test. No subband changes, written test changes,
etc. Just elimination of Element 1.

Did I miss something?

Odd that NCVEC beat NCI to the punch on this one.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Mike Yetsko" wrote in message
...
From what I heard, (from a posting on QRZ) the NCVEC group
yesterday filed a petition with the FCC to abandon CW testing.

The petition, unfortunatly, makes no provisions to preserve CW
subbands...

Mike,

What CW subbands?

I just read the thing on QRZ.com, and it looks to me like all the
NCVEC wants to do is dump Element 1 and allow Techs who have not
passed a code test to have the same HF privs as Novices and Techs who
have passed a code test. No subband changes, written test changes,
etc. Just elimination of Element 1.

Did I miss something?

Odd that NCVEC beat NCI to the punch on this one.

73 de Jim, N2EY

If you read the proposal, it's a bit confusing in how they specify frequency
for privilege. The only two scenarios that make sense is that they propose
rolling in novice CW space with generic space, or that novice space is
allowed into the CW space even though they've never been tested for
CW.

The second I approve of. I think right now, today, all tech operators
should be allowed on HF in the CW space for novices. Ie, give them
the CW space to play with IN CW ONLY.

Mike

"Mike Yetsko" wrote in message
...
From what I heard, (from a posting on QRZ) the NCVEC group
yesterday filed a petition with the FCC to abandon CW testing.

The petition, unfortunatly, makes no provisions to preserve CW
subbands...

The CW subbands are already called out in the FCC regulations separately
from the CW testing. Thus simply dropping the code test from the rules does
not change the rules on the subband allocations. Thus the NCVEC petition
does not need a provision to preserve the CW subbands.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE