Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Hampton" wrote:
Mike, I agree it *is* a reasonable argument. Myself, I would prefer that a portion of the bands be reserved for digital modes (including cw) in the same manner that many parking lots used to have a number of spaces reserved for small cars (I haven't seen that many in some time since cars have shrunk considerably since the 70s). My fear is that some of the yahoos with 5 KW capability would love to wreck havoc in the low ends of the various amateur bands using voice modes. Besides, it makes it easier to find a station using a mode that you may wish to use if the bands are segmented somewhat to use. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA 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.) 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 technical requirements which are the basis for band allocation. (Testing is apples; band allocation is oranges.) There are many modes with "special status", none of which have ever been a "requirement" for a ham license. CW is now (or shortly will be) no different, in that respect. We still have "special status" in band allocations for digital modes, slow scan TV, SSB, AM, FM, and yes, CW. The basis for those allocations has not changed. The allocations may indeed be ripe for a few changes, but not because the test requirements were changed. 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? That is not technically sound. An essentially narrow band mode like CW is not nearly the interference problem to wide band modes like SSB and AM that the wide band modes are to the narrow band modes. Hence, no phone in the CW band by regulation, but the same is not required to keep CW out of the phone band. Not that it would hurt anything to ban CW from the phone bands, just that it isn't needed. 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. A more reasonable approach is the current arrangement, though it probably is time to consider some adjustments to the amount of spectrum allocated to narrow band digital modes vs. wide band phone modes. A shift of 25 to 100 KHz from most of the HF CW bands over to the phone bands would not necessarily be a bad thing. But it would certainly cause a lot of noise if it were proposed, and hence might take many years to accomplish. Therefore it probably should be proposed now, and in 20 years when it becomes reality, it will only be 10-15 years late... ;-) Regardless, it is _technically_ not wise to allow wide band operation in the narrow band digital band segments, and for that reason I doubt the FCC will ever entertain the idea. 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. That paragraph is correct. It's just the ideas given above for the causative factors, the affected factors, and what the methods should be that were wrong! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
helmsman wrote:
On 27 Jul 2003 13:09:25 -0800, Floyd Davidson wrote: Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) Thanks for the tour of Alaska. Mighty fine page!! Quyanapuk! which is "a big thanks" in the way my neighbors would say it in Inupiaq. Some day I'll add some more pictures, and finish the descriptions of each of the North Slope villages. One other thing I should do is add a URL for Barrow weather, as it is often just as interesting as pictures. Right now, for example! http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/PABR.html Typical late-July/early-August day. Here's another URL that you may also get a kick out of, as it shows where the Arctic ice pack is. http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/data/ice/graphics/acij23a.gif We've had two boats show up off shore already, but as can be seen in the satellite images, getting any farther east than Barrow would be a bit difficult except for the one that was a Coast Guard icebreaker. That ice will clear out by late August and early September, and barges will be able to make it to Prudhoe Bay which is 200 some miles east of here. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
help me hack mailbox alert | Antenna | |||
Here it is-BPL full rollout in Va (MANASSAS Va - BPL RED ALERT!!!) | Antenna | |||
With CW gone, can the CW allocations be far behind? | General |