![]() |
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
KØHB wrote:
wrote funny I thought they could still CW everywhere in band That' may be true in theory, but not in practice. You can't use CW on frequencies which your license class prohibits. Generals just lost 150kHz of prime CW/rtty/data spectrum from 3.6 to 3.75MHz, the other parts of the band their license class doesn't allow. So much for "CW everywhere in band". 73, de Hans, K0HB The comment is that you can use CW anywhere within the allowable frequencies for you class of license. Dave WD9BDZ |
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
KØHB wrote:
Full R&O is at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-06-149A1.doc or you can get a short version at http://www.arrl.org I personally would like to see all amateur frequencies open to CW operation by any and all classes of licenses. Want an incentive? There it is. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:01:44 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: KØHB wrote: "Cecil Moore" wrote Hans, has CW been barred from parts of 75m? I haven't read the R&O. No, but Generals will be evicted from 3600-3750 if the R&O stands as written. I thought there was an unwritten law that no new rule would cause any loss of privileges. Are you sure the FCC actually did that? Can you say, "Eleven meters" or "Incentive Licensing?" |
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
Alun L. Palmer wrote: Slow Code wrote in news:6tgXg.8071$Y24.103 @newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net: "Iitoi" wrote in ink.net: 80M and 40M phone band expansion http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-06-149A1.doc I don't know if we'll get Mad right away but it's clear the FCC and the ARRL want to drive all good hams out of the service. Little by little they'll take away the non-phone portions of the bands and hand it over to the phone users. Like a frog in a pot of water that's raised to boiling point, one day us real hams will find we have to place to communicate on the ham bands that doesn't sound like Citizens Band. SC Here's a reality check. On 80m the rest of the world, except Canada, has always had phone down to 3600 as far back as I can remember, and we are merely joining them. The VE phone ops still have to stay above 3700, I think. On 40m the international bandplans have phone down to 7040 except in Region 3 where it is 7030. The only countries that I know of where you can't use phone down to 7040 are Mexico (7050) and the USA (now 7125 after the change). US hams outside Region 2 have had phone down to 7075 for years, and I am on record as suggesting that we should have that in the mainland US. It's hard to see why not when you actually look at what the rest of the world is doing. At the same time countries in Region 1 aren't supposed to get access to 7100-7200 until the middle of 2007. Many of them already have, but for those that haven't, a phone subband that goes down to 7125 still doesn't even reach the top edge of their whole band. Doubtless some of them will be late in implementing the extra spectrum, so forced split working will drag on a while longer. Alun you've been dumping this old whine into the groups for years now and it's long since worn out. Not that it needs to be explained to you *again* but the FCC is *protecting* the dx from the hordes of Yanks who would obliterate the dx if we were allowed to run SSB below 7100. Dee also explaned it in her immediately preceeding post, read it, give us a break and internalize it this time then go find something new to grouse about for the next five years. Maybe by then your chums in the UK will be able to transceive with you above 7125. How would you like it if your 40m CW allocation were on frequencies that were off limits to the DX? The difference is all about one SSB signal taking up the same amout of spectrum space as 5-10 CW signals. On 20m and 15m we still have 50 kHz less phone on each band than all other countries. Although General and Advanced got bigger phone subbands on 15 (as well as 80 and 40), the bottom edge of phone didn't move on 15 (or 20). 73 de Alun, N3KIP (20wpm Extra, 100% phone op) There's your real problem. w3rv |
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
|
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote: the FCC does not care about protecting DX forgien or domestic .. . . domestic DX . . ? the ARRL may well have when they sugested this sort of arngementmany years (part of incentive licening I supose) Doesn't matter where the concept came from originally, it's been in place for decades. w3rv |
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
wrote:
wrote: KØHB wrote: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote 73 de Alun, N3KIP (20wpm Extra, 100% phone op) Alun, With all due respect, your signature line kind of reveals your agenda.. We aren't talking about Extra's who don't use CW/rtty/data. The folks we're talking about here are Generals, the most populous HF license class in the US. On 75m they have just had their CW/rtty/data spectrum reduced by 2/3rds. That's outrageous! 73, de Hans, K0HB Here, I'll have a go. When the new changes go into effect: Generals gain 50 kHz of 'phone but lose 150 kHz of cw/rtty (1:3 ratio of gained/lost bandspace) Advanceds gain 75 kHz of 'phone but lose 100 kHz of cw/rtty (3:4 ratio) Extras gain 150 kHz of 'phone but lose 150 kHz of cw/rtty (1:1) Novices and codetested Techs gain 75 kHz in one part of the band but lose 75 kHz elsewhere (3:2) Do you see the disparity, particularly for Generals? Why should it exist? What did Generals do to merit losing so much spectrum? Failed to upgrade is the trite answer. Maybe so! Note how, in more than one Report and Order, FCC has pointed out how little testing it takes to upgrade to Extra. FCC has repeatedly turned down all proposals that would have granted instant upgrades, like making all Advanceds into Extras. Maybe it's time to take the hint. Why can't the low end of 75 be moved 50 kHz instead of 150 kHz, and the lower limit of each 'phone subband moved down 50 kHz? Then, each license class would gain as many kHz of 'phone as they lose CW/rtty. 1:1 ratio for everyone. If you don't think 50 kHz is enough, make it 75 kHz. The point is that the most populous license class on the band *loses* the most total kHz! The ratio is 1 kHz gained for 3 kHz lost - why? The error is attaching the same value to General cw/rtty space per Khz as you're attaching to their phone space per Khz. Which it is not. Unless I'm 'way off the mark the vast majority of Generals won't miss the cw/rtty space at all and they'll be delighted with their new phone space. Note the lack of Generals expressing any opinions on the subject. If they're not in here complaining about losing cw/rtty space why should us OF Extras care about the subject one way or the other? It sets a bad precedent. How much will 3600-3700 be used when it is Extra-only? We'll find out soon enough won't we? Then again the new 3600 band edge could well be just a placeholder for "things to come" rather than just another conventional expansion of phone space. This R&O has too many oddities in it like this one for me to believe that the FCC is finished "streamlining the service". Maybe it's the result of the ARRLs pestering the FCC to publish a response to the NPRMs. So the FCC did and damn the torpedoes so this is what we got. For now. Bought the FCC more time to quietly come up with their "real" omnibus NPRM/R&O? I think we're on to the same idea. I wonder what FCC really thinks of us hams. Sure, they say certain things - because they have to. But consider what amateur radio may look like to at least some of them: We have huge amounts of spectrum set aside for us by international treaty, and we yelp at the loss of even small amounts of it to other services.We don't generate any real revenue, yet we keep asking for more enforcement. Users of other services complain about interference from us (even when it's not our fault) and we complain about interference from power lines, appliances, etc., that don't seem to bother anybody else. We raise holy heck over new technologies like BPL, even though the state-of-the-art experts who design the new technologies say we amateurs are wrong. And now the big one: We amateurs send in way too many petitions/proposals to FCC, and then cannot agree about what we really want. I think what FCC expects is for us hams to argue amongst ourselves and work out what rules we really want *before* sending in any petitions/proposals. Then, when a proposal is sent in and FCC gives it an RM number, the comments are overwhelmingly positive and FCC's job is easy. Look at the recent "bandwidth" proposals. ARRL sends in one, a group called CTT sends in another. Both are given RM numbers and very short comment periods. Both get a ton of comments - overwhelmingly opposed! CTT is opposed even more than ARRL (something like 7 or 8 to 1 against for both of them). Could be that the folks at FCC who have to go through all that are angry at having to deal with it? Two groups who both claim to know what's best for amateur radio sent in proposals that cost a lot of FCC resources. But neither group gets widespread amateur support *first*, so the comments are an overwhelming "NO!" to both proposals. The Morse Code test issue is even more of a mess. Treaty changes, FCC gets *18* proposals! Huh? Some are poles apart while others are virtually identical. They gotta deal with 18 RMs and comments on all of them. One self-proclaimed "PROFESSIONAL", who isn't even a ham and doesn't intend to be one, sends them hundreds of pages of comments and reply comments, which they have to wade through. Now look at what Industry Canada dealt with. The national society worked out a compromise on the issue, got consensus from its members and the general Canadian amateur radio community, *then* made a proposal - complete with detailed poll results. Proposal was supported in comments and sailed right through. RAC made IC's work easy. When's the last time *any* proposal sent to FCC by hams (not just ARRL) got widespread support in the comments? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
wrote:
wrote: KØHB wrote: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote Why can't the low end of 75 be moved 50 kHz instead of 150 kHz, and the lower limit of each 'phone subband moved down 50 kHz? Then, each license class would gain as many kHz of 'phone as they lose CW/rtty. 1:1 ratio for everyone. If you don't think 50 kHz is enough, make it 75 kHz. The point is that the most populous license class on the band *loses* the most total kHz! The ratio is 1 kHz gained for 3 kHz lost - why? The error is attaching the same value to General cw/rtty space per Khz as you're attaching to their phone space per Khz. Which it is not. Unless I'm 'way off the mark the vast majority of Generals won't miss the cw/rtty space at all and they'll be delighted with their new phone space. Note the lack of Generals expressing any opinions on the subject. If they're not in here complaining about losing cw/rtty space why should us OF Extras care about the subject one way or the other? How much will 3600-3700 be used when it is Extra-only? We'll find out soon enough won't we? Then again the new 3600 band edge could well be just a placeholder for "things to come" rather than just another conventional expansion of phone space. This R&O has too many oddities in it like this one for me to believe that the FCC is finished "streamlining the service". Maybe it's the result of the ARRLs pestering the FCC to publish a response to the NPRMs. So the FCC did and damn the torpedoes so this is what we got. For now. Bought the FCC more time to quietly come up with their "real" omnibus NPRM/R&O? I see something a bit less nefarious. I think the FCC made a decision without thinking it through--perhaps pushed to do so by the ARRL call for action to be taken. What will be interesting is to see if the Commission corrects its action or simply attempts to justify it. You're certainly correct that there seems to have been almost no raising of the alarm by General Class licensees. Dave K8MN |
CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!
wrote: wrote: wrote: KØHB wrote: Do you see the disparity, particularly for Generals? Why should it exist? What did Generals do to merit losing so much spectrum? Failed to upgrade is the trite answer. Maybe so! Absolutely so. This thing is a watered-down repeat of the 1960s "restructuring". Note how, in more than one Report and Order, FCC has pointed out how little testing it takes to upgrade to Extra. FCC has repeatedly turned down all proposals that would have granted instant upgrades, like making all Advanceds into Extras. Maybe it's time to take the hint. Note the lack of Generals expressing any opinions on the subject. If they're not in here complaining about losing cw/rtty space why should us OF Extras care about the subject one way or the other? It sets a bad precedent. In what respect? Maybe it's the result of the ARRLs pestering the FCC to publish a response to the NPRMs. So the FCC did and damn the torpedoes so this is what we got. For now. Bought the FCC more time to quietly come up with their "real" omnibus NPRM/R&O? I think we're on to the same idea. I wonder what FCC really thinks of us hams. PIAs. Their problem. Sure, they say certain things - because they have to. But consider what amateur radio may look like to at least some of them: We have huge amounts of spectrum set aside for us by international treaty, and we yelp at the loss of even small amounts of it to other services.We don't generate any real revenue, yet we keep asking for more enforcement. Users of other services complain about interference from us (even when it's not our fault) and we complain about interference from power lines, appliances, etc., that don't seem to bother anybody else. We raise holy heck over new technologies like BPL, even though the state-of-the-art experts who design the new technologies say we amateurs are wrong. The "relationship" between ham radio and the FCC is no different overall than the way the FAA gets pounded by the recreational aviation crowd and the Department of the Interior gets Excedrin headaches from the hiking, camping, hunting and fishing bunch. The ongoing regulatory brawls between the skimobile/ATV users vs. the preservationists make our little code test dispute look laughable in comparison. When it's all said and done the regulatory agencies have been instructed by law and funded by Congress to deal with the sometimes goofy issues we the public stick them with - since it's *us* who are paying them to do it. And now the big one: We amateurs send in way too many petitions/proposals to FCC, and then cannot agree about what we really want. I think what FCC expects is for us hams to argue amongst ourselves and work out what rules we really want *before* sending in any petitions/proposals. Then, when a proposal is sent in and FCC gives it an RM number, the comments are overwhelmingly positive and FCC's job is easy. Look at the recent "bandwidth" proposals. ARRL sends in one, a group called CTT sends in another. Both are given RM numbers and very short comment periods. Both get a ton of comments - overwhelmingly opposed! CTT is opposed even more than ARRL (something like 7 or 8 to 1 against for both of them). Could be that the folks at FCC who have to go through all that are angry at having to deal with it? Two groups who both claim to know what's best for amateur radio sent in proposals that cost a lot of FCC resources. But neither group gets widespread amateur support *first*, so the comments are an overwhelming "NO!" to both proposals. The Morse Code test issue is even more of a mess. Treaty changes, FCC gets *18* proposals! Huh? Some are poles apart while others are virtually identical. They gotta deal with 18 RMs and comments on all of them. No sympathy. See above about who gets paid to do what. One self-proclaimed "PROFESSIONAL", who isn't even a ham and doesn't intend to be one, sends them hundreds of pages of comments and reply comments, which they have to wade through. No way. The FCC staffers who deal with these things don't live in a vacuum, they're not stupid and they know bull**** when it lands in their inboxes and they know how to handle it. By now they've long since gotten wise to Anderson's childish antics and his "comments" just get rubber-stamped "READ" and tossed into the outbox without further ado. He's not having any impact at all at the FCC and he knows it, he's trolling for folk like you who get their knickers in a twist over his nonsense. Now look at what Industry Canada dealt with. The national society worked out a compromise on the issue, got consensus from its members and the general Canadian amateur radio community, *then* made a proposal - complete with detailed poll results. Proposal was supported in comments and sailed right through. RAC made IC's work easy. When's the last time *any* proposal sent to FCC by hams (not just ARRL) got widespread support in the comments? Back when I worked in Canada for a number of months and it was a real eye-opener. One big lesson I learned is that Yanks in general don't understand that in many respects Canada is culturally quite different from the U.S. even though the language is functionally identical and the border is wide open by international standards. In a nutshell my take has been that Canadians are far more likely to come to a consensus than we are by their general nature. So are most of the Europeans. We're the global odd jobs, we're notorious all over the planet for preferring food fights to regulatory peace and quiet. We is what we is, the old "herding cats" syndrome in play. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com