On May 5, 8:04Â pm, wrote:
On May 3, 11:16�pm, Bill Horne wrote:

It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.

That's still the case.

Incorrect. Amateur radio operating protocol is nothing like what
is used in the US military.

That "case" might have been valid prior to WWII but that time
period was 67 and more years ago.

Now, with Morse as deeply buried as its creators and military
electronics too
secret to be entrusted to soldiers and sailors who haven't
been vetted
for security clearances, we're yesterday's news in the E ring.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Morse as deeply buried as its
creators".

I would suggest you borrow a 'communications receiver' that can
tune in the HF spectrum OTHER than amateur radio band allocations.

For one thing, the US military had all but abandoned morse code
mode before 1953 for any mass-volume messaging connecting North
America to military bases around the rest of the world.

For another thing, the US military has abandoned HF for any mass-
volume messaging and now uses secure military communications
satellites, troposcatter, and the DSN (Digital Switched Network)
for 24/7 communications. DSN has very robust security and is the
major system of 'flash' alerts to land bases. Alerts for
submarines (to listen to HF thru microwaves for the main message)
are slow-speed encrypted data at VLF that can be received while
submerged. The US military still keeps HF radios on a standby
basis but only uses them for periodic operational checks. MARS
is not a part of the daily US military messaging routine, although
it is much closer to the use of operations protocol than amateurs.

We hams continue to use Morse Code on the air - extensively, too!

Please define "extensively" (with or without exclamation mark).

No one has stated or implied that amateur use of morse code was
not "extensive." In an unofficial poll at the ARRL website some
time ago, #1 communications mode on amateur bands was voice.

MARS is running Morse Code nets again, on an experimental basis.

Military Affiliate Radio System mission was changed about five
years ago to act in accord with other US government agencies to
(ostensibly) link them together. Army MARS Hq is at Fort
Huachuca, AZ, the same military base that houses the Army
Military Intelligence training facilities.

It's true that Morse Code has all but been eliminated by the US
military for its own communications uses.

That is not true. For routine tactical or strategic communications
the US military has abandoned morse code.

The M.I. school at Fort Huachuca still trains some in morse code
signal intercept analysis but that is NOT communications per se.
To attempt stating that SIGINT operations "use morse code" is like
saying the Army still uses muskets and Revolutionary War uniforms
because one Army unit in Washington, DC, has them for ceremonial
duties.

That's no surprise, even
though Morse Code was used extensively by the US military in both
World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam.

Morse code was used "extensively" in World War ONE. In that 1914
to 1918 period voice communications was relegated to wireline
communications circuits. Teleprinter circuits had already been
established before the US entry into WWII, including its use on
USN ships (see the 'SIGABA' descriptions on various websites for
online encryption capability over teleprinter as early as 1940).

As a soldier during and just after the Korean War, doing mass-
volume communications via HF, I can assure you that morse code
was NOT used for such communications about logistics or military
planning plus (in a secondary basis) broadcasting news and
'health and welfare' messages carried for the Red Cross and
other agencies to military members.

The vast majority of communications carried on during the
recognized active period of US involvement in Vietnam was voice
and teleprinter. Like the Korean War, the Vietnam War was not
a 'true' war yet service members were killed or wounded as a
part of that actual warfare.

During the prosecution of the Korean War, the US military
routinely handled about a quarter million messages a month
through military facilities. That was nearly doubled for the
Vietnam War. Morse code communications MIGHT have been used
in rare instances for both wars but its role was so minor as
to be discounted compared to the MASS of messaging needed to
maintain troops and equipment far from the USA.

All of that military communications information is public and
available to anyone who cares to look for it. I would suggest
the U.S. Army Center For Military History as a starting point
for very detailed historical accounts of the US Army since the
Revolutionary War.

But that doesn't mean hams should stop using Morse Code.

NOBODY has said "hams should stop using" it. Please try to
restrain generating another sub-thread about it. Please try
to educate yourself about radio uses outside of amateur radio
as described other than the ARRL publications or website.

In order to EDUCATE THE PUBLIC, I would suggest channeling
your promotion OUTSIDE of amateur radio venues. The general
public and lawmakers don't much look into ham radio venues.

AF6AY

In ,
AF6AY typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: On May 5, 8:04 pm, wrote:
: On May 3, 11:16�pm, Bill Horne wrote:
:
: It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
: be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.
:
: That's still the case.
:
: Incorrect. Amateur radio operating protocol is nothing like what
: is used in the US military.

[snip]

Well, I seem to have sparked quite a debate..!

However, a lot of it seems to have gone more than a little OT (which
doesn't surprise me and is actually quite interesting, so don't consider
it a moan..!)

But.. what are the thoughts on my original point, that of the differences
in attitude of the authorities in the US and UK about protection from
interference from commercial operators using frequencies within the
amateur bands..? It seems to me, unless I've misunderstood, that in the US
you can still claim a certain degree of protection from other users,
whereas here we can't.

73 Ivor G6URP

On May 7, 12:03�am, "Ivor Jones" wrote:

what are the thoughts on my original point, that of the differences
in attitude of the authorities in the US and UK about protection
from
interference from commercial operators using frequencies
within the
amateur bands..? It seems to me, unless I've misunderstood,
that in the US
you can still claim a certain degree of protection from other users,
whereas here we can't.

The following is just an informal observation...

Here in the USA, we have two regulatory agencies for radio: FCC, which
does non-government radio, and NTIA, which does government/military
radio. NTIA trumps FCC, of course. The radar-interference case
mentioned elsewhere in this thread clearly shows who has priority on
the band in question.

But your question is about *commercial* (nongovernment) users/
intruders into the amateur bands, where such use is not part of the
regulations.

In theory, those intruders are breaking the law and should be removed
by the FCC. In practice, the FCC is complaint-driven, which means
amateurs must identify the intruder and complain to the FCC. Helping
with such complaints is one of the major functions of the ARRL and its
legal department.

But simply complaining to FCC does not mean the problem will be
solved, because FCC's resources are very limited. The motorsports
story referred to required a lot of work on the part of the ARRL and
the amateurs involved.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In ,
typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: On May 7, 12:03�am, "Ivor Jones" wrote:
:
: what are the thoughts on my original point, that of the differences
: in attitude of the authorities in the US and UK about protection
: from
: interference from commercial operators using frequencies
: within the
: amateur bands..? It seems to me, unless I've misunderstood,
: that in the US
: you can still claim a certain degree of protection from other users,
: whereas here we can't.
:
: The following is just an informal observation...
:
: Here in the USA, we have two regulatory agencies for radio: FCC, which
: does non-government radio, and NTIA, which does government/military
: radio. NTIA trumps FCC, of course. The radar-interference case
: mentioned elsewhere in this thread clearly shows who has priority on
: the band in question.
:
: But your question is about *commercial* (nongovernment) users/
: intruders into the amateur bands, where such use is not part of the
: regulations.
:
: In theory, those intruders are breaking the law and should be removed
: by the FCC. In practice, the FCC is complaint-driven, which means
: amateurs must identify the intruder and complain to the FCC. Helping
: with such complaints is one of the major functions of the ARRL and its
: legal department.
:
: But simply complaining to FCC does not mean the problem will be
: solved, because FCC's resources are very limited. The motorsports
: story referred to required a lot of work on the part of the ARRL and
: the amateurs involved.
:
: 73 de Jim, N2EY

Ah, thanks. However, over here we do have "legal" intrusions into some of
the amateur bands, most are in the microwave region, notably 10GHz, where
we lost a sizeable chunk a while back.

The main one though is 431-432 MHz which is not available for use within
100km of Charing Cross (central London) and also for some distance around
the military radar installation at Fylingdales in Yorkshire. In the London
area I believe it's allocated to taxis of all things..! There isn't a lot
of amateur activity in that segment, I think some wide-split repeaters may
have inputs or outputs there but generally it's a low-occupancy segment of
the band, so all in all it's not a major hassle.

It's the principle of the thing that annoys me, though. Even where we are
primary users, such as 2m, we can claim *no* protection from interference,
even if the cause of said interference shouldn't be there.

73 Ivor G6URP

On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:48:04 EDT, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:

It's the principle of the thing that annoys me, though. Even where we are
primary users, such as 2m, we can claim *no* protection from interference,
even if the cause of said interference shouldn't be there.

Things must have changed since my initial training in international
radio regulation in the mid-1960s where the British Post Office (the
forerunner of the RA) was held up as a model of "we'll lock you up if
you don't have a licence to operate there" - and the French were
pointed out as an example of "the ordinary citizen needs a radio as
much as he needs a machine gun".....hams were a grudging exception,
and of course when cellphones became available, everyone got one
because they knew that cellphones were not radios, right? g

Then again, the FCC in the US - where I ultimately spent most of my
professional career - was also very involved in "catching bad guys".
The epidemic of unlawful CB operations of the 1970s and 80s - for
which most of the world's governments never forgave the US - and an
unfortunate shift in regard to what the government's obligations were
- changed all that.

Notwithstanding the historical precedents of military-civilian sharing
of frequency bands, granting commercial interests licenses to operate
in the amateur bands is basic bad regulatory policy. All of us
old-time regulation professionals knew that as an article of faith.
The new crop is guided more by the buck (or the Euro, or the quid)
than by what good regulatory policy is.

As far as the military goes, I learned early in the game that de
facto the military of any country can operate on any frequency that it
so desires if (1) it doesn't interfere with anything operating in that
country and it (2) doesn't identify. If it wants to play the
gentleman game the country will notify the operation to the ITU
Radiocommunications Bureau (ITU-R) which now does what the
International Frequency Registration Bureau (IFRB) did before ITU
reorganization. Whether the information is accurate or not is an
exercise left for the listener.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

In news Phil Kane typed, for some strange,
unexplained reason:
: On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:48:04 EDT, "Ivor Jones"
: wrote:
:
: It's the principle of the thing that annoys me, though. Even where
: we are primary users, such as 2m, we can claim *no* protection from
: interference, even if the cause of said interference shouldn't be
: there.
:
: Things must have changed since my initial training in international
: radio regulation in the mid-1960s where the British Post Office (the
: forerunner of the RA) was held up as a model of "we'll lock you up if
: you don't have a licence to operate there" - and the French were
: pointed out as an example of "the ordinary citizen needs a radio as
: much as he needs a machine gun".....hams were a grudging exception,
: and of course when cellphones became available, everyone got one
: because they knew that cellphones were not radios, right? g

Indeed. My friend Colin G3USA (great callsign, eh..!) tells me that in his
early days on air in the 60's an amateur could expect to be regularly
visited by an officer of the Radio Investigation Service who would check
your logbook and that you knew how to use a wavemeter for example.

In my 25 years of being licensed I've never been inspected once.

73 Ivor G6URP

Ah, thanks. However, over here we do have "legal" intrusions into some of
the amateur bands, most are in the microwave region, notably 10GHz, where
we lost a sizeable chunk a while back.

The main one though is 431-432 MHz which is not available for use within
100km of Charing Cross (central London) and also for some distance around
the military radar installation at Fylingdales in Yorkshire. In the London
area I believe it's allocated to taxis of all things..! There isn't a lot
of amateur activity in that segment, I think some wide-split repeaters may
have inputs or outputs there but generally it's a low-occupancy segment of
the band, so all in all it's not a major hassle.

It's the principle of the thing that annoys me, though. Even where we are
primary users, such as 2m, we can claim *no* protection from interference,
even if the cause of said interference shouldn't be there.

73 Ivor G6URP

The main problem in the UK is not the commercial use of 431-432 in the
London area, rather the proliferation of licence exempt low power devices.
Everything from key fobs to weather stations and tower crane anti-collision
systems. They are popping up quite legally all over 70cms.

Even one 70cms repeater was ordered off the air because it was stopping
people from remotely opening their car doors in a nearby carpark!

The UK has a Pave Paws derivative at Fylingdales at that caused a ban on new
repeater applications in 70cms, the military being worried about the
increase in noise floor that additional signals would introduce.

73
Jeff