FUD ALERT !!!!! (was With CW gone, can the CW allocations be far behind?)
 

"Joe Collins" wrote in message
...
Now that Bruce Parens and NCI have won the CW wars, what will happen
to the exclusive CW allocations if a CW requirement is dropped?

WHAT "exclusive CW allocations" ??? Are you talking about
50.0-50.1 MHz and 144.0-144.1 MHz??? If not, you're operating
under a serious misunderstanding of the FCC rules and should
consider some remedial study ... you are a licensed ham, right?
(You should, therefore, know these things ...)

Certainly there can be no argument for keeping the current band
structure in place, and phone operations probably ought to be spread
out into what was once exclusively reserved for CW operators. Not
only would this alleviate the congestion in the phone bands, but it
would finally and officially place CW into perspective: Just another
optional mode of operation without any exclusive rights to any
frequency.

Certainly there should NOT be an expansion of the phone bands
(this is my *personal* opinion), as that would constrain the development
of modern digital modes in (what you think is "exclusive CW allocations."


--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Member, Wi-Fi Alliance Spectrum Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
Member, The SETI League
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org

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

"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 -



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03

"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)

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!!

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)

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.

All good points, Jim. The US method does indeed work pretty well, and
hams who disregard it with bookoo power could indeed make a mmess of it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"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 -

Mike,

As another NCI director, I'd tell Stu that IF he feels strongly
about his suggestion, he could submit a petition for
rulemaking to the FCC.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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 -

Bill Sohl 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 -


Mike,

As another NCI director, I'd tell Stu that IF he feels strongly
about his suggestion, he could submit a petition for
rulemaking to the FCC.

I don't get it. You guys have lots to say to us nasty pro-coders, but
now you are pretty low key.

I have an idea, Why don't you tell Stu just that, not me? Do you agree
with him???


- Mike KB3EIA -

"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?

I'd bet on development ... because that's one of the fundamental
purposes amateur radio exists ... read the R&O in WT Docket
No. 98-143 (it's on the NCI website "Articles" page ... you'll
have to scroll down a ways ...)

Carl - wk3c

"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