"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

(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)

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

(Michael Black) wrote in message ...

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

You forgot the Titanic.

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