"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dick Carroll wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:


"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:
You
are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams
by proactively advocating CW use.

Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a
licensing requirement, too.

So much for your advocacy of morse to new hams.
You made my point.


Bill you have been quite consistant about missing the entire point. When
there is no
code test
most hams won't learn Morse code. I know that taxes you not a bit, so
that means that
you don't
care whether or not hams will be losing it as a viable mode. Which shows
how
shortsighted you
are, right along with the rest of NCI. And yes, FCC too. Of course they
have far
bigger fish to fry
than to worry about a trivial detail involving the ARS. The least time
they must
spend on ARS issues the better for them, whatever the end result.


I don't think there is any point missed at all. I think that those who
oppose the test know very well that elimination of the test will
eventually eliminate use.

Strange that there are many things people do which are
long past relative to modern needs (archery, old cars,
etc.) without any testing needed to continue interest
in and to bring newcomers to the interest. IF morse
dies without testing then that's a sad commentary on
"how great it is" as promoted by PCTAs in this newsgroup.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dick Carroll wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:



"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:

You
are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams
by proactively advocating CW use.

Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a
licensing requirement, too.

So much for your advocacy of morse to new hams.
You made my point.


Bill you have been quite consistant about missing the entire point. When

there is no

code test
most hams won't learn Morse code. I know that taxes you not a bit, so

that means that

you don't
care whether or not hams will be losing it as a viable mode. Which shows

how

shortsighted you
are, right along with the rest of NCI. And yes, FCC too. Of course they

have far

bigger fish to fry
than to worry about a trivial detail involving the ARS. The least time

they must

spend on ARS issues the better for them, whatever the end result.


I don't think there is any point missed at all. I think that those who
oppose the test know very well that elimination of the test will
eventually eliminate use.


Strange that there are many things people do which are
long past relative to modern needs (archery, old cars,
etc.) without any testing needed to continue interest
in and to bring newcomers to the interest. IF morse
dies without testing then that's a sad commentary on
"how great it is" as promoted by PCTAs in this newsgroup.

Because there is the difference between a cheerful anachronism, and what
will eventually be considered a waste of bandwidth.

I can keep an old car in my garage without affecting anyone.but
bandwidth is another matter. But let us look at this scenario. Say 15
years from now, there will be s aizable number of hams who have never
used a paddle or key. There will be new hams taking up CW, but without
an incentive, like a Morse code test, that number will likely fall
somehat percentage wise (it has to if the No-coders are correct in that
good hams are kept off the air by the code test)

So these hams look at the bandplans: "Wow! just look at 80 meters. Fully
half the bandplan is dedicated to stuff other than SSB! It's unfair that
they should have all that bandwidth." And a bandwidth grab begins......
Doesn't matter that there are still CW users out there. "And heck, they
are always bragging about how little bandwidth they use, so only give
them a minimum abount if anything."

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

So these hams look at the bandplans: "Wow! just look at 80 meters. Fully
half the bandplan is dedicated to stuff other than SSB! It's unfair that
they should have all that bandwidth." And a bandwidth grab begins......
Doesn't matter that there are still CW users out there. "And heck, they
are always bragging about how little bandwidth they use, so only give
them a minimum abount if anything."

Awwwww...sore losers? :-)

Once upon a time in hamland there was only SPARK...with a very very
few rich folks owning alternators. Nearly all were on MF and LF. Hams
said they were Mighty and all were Morsemen.

"Tubes" were for sissies with money. Bzzzp...bzzzp...bzzzp.

Along came nasty ol gubmint and said "Everyone on wavelengths
SHORTER than 200 meters!" Oh! The grousing and the grumbling
and curses and imprecations against gubmint! Bzzzp...bzzzp...bzzzp.

Then nasty ol gubmint said "SPARK is forbidden! No more SPARK!"
More curses, more grumbling, more imprecations! End of the world.
All those hams had to learn all about TUBES! Woe!

ADAPT or DIE. Get the picture?

LHA

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dick Carroll wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:



"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:

You
are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams
by proactively advocating CW use.

Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a
licensing requirement, too.

So much for your advocacy of morse to new hams.
You made my point.


Bill you have been quite consistant about missing the entire point.
When

there is no

code test
most hams won't learn Morse code. I know that taxes you not a bit, so

that means that

you don't
care whether or not hams will be losing it as a viable mode. Which
shows

how

shortsighted you
are, right along with the rest of NCI. And yes, FCC too. Of course they

have far

bigger fish to fry
than to worry about a trivial detail involving the ARS. The least time

they must

spend on ARS issues the better for them, whatever the end result.


I don't think there is any point missed at all. I think that those who
oppose the test know very well that elimination of the test will
eventually eliminate use.


Strange that there are many things people do which are
long past relative to modern needs (archery, old cars,
etc.) without any testing needed to continue interest
in and to bring newcomers to the interest. IF morse
dies without testing then that's a sad commentary on
"how great it is" as promoted by PCTAs in this newsgroup.

Because there is the difference between a cheerful anachronism, and what
will eventually be considered a waste of bandwidth.

I can keep an old car in my garage without affecting anyone.but
bandwidth is another matter. But let us look at this scenario. Say 15
years from now, there will be s aizable number of hams who have never
used a paddle or key. There will be new hams taking up CW, but without
an incentive, like a Morse code test, that number will likely fall
somehat percentage wise (it has to if the No-coders are correct in that
good hams are kept off the air by the code test)

So these hams look at the bandplans: "Wow! just look at 80 meters. Fully
half the bandplan is dedicated to stuff other than SSB! It's unfair that
they should have all that bandwidth." And a bandwidth grab begins......
Doesn't matter that there are still CW users out there. "And heck, they
are always bragging about how little bandwidth they use, so only give
them a minimum abount if anything."

Mike,

Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden
will be on the users of non-phone modes.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden
will be on the users of non-phone modes.


Despite the fact that the non-phone segment is not under utilized, the phone
people are already crying for the non-phone segment. This cry will continue
to grow. Why should the burden of proof fall on the users of the non-phone
modes?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Bill Sohl wrote:

Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden
will be on the users of non-phone modes.


And right there you have it!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden
will be on the users of non-phone modes.


And right there you have it!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike,

Don't read Bill's comments above as "NCI Policy" or "NCI Goals/Agenda" ...
that's
simply not the case.

Bill's just stating the obvious. (And since what CW fans refer to as "the
CW
bands" are actually the "non-SSB/phone, CW/narrowband digital modes bands,"
the occupancy thereof that Bill refers to need not be solely CW users, but
users
of other digital modes as well.

Collectively, they (CW and digital users) need to "use it or lose it" in a
long-term,
practical sense (even ARRL says "use it or lose it" ... see Dave Sumner's
recent
column on the new channels near 5 MHz). That, I am sure, is what Bill meant
when he said "The burden will be on the users of non-phone modes."

HOWEVER, phone band expansion is NOT an NCI agenda ... the ARRL has,
though, asked the FCC in the past to expand the phone bands by "refarming"
the Novice bands ... and, if the FCC were to see that roughly half of our HF
bands were grossly underutilized, they might, of their own volition, decide
to
do some "refarming" in the form of phone band expansion.

As I have said over and over, I would NOT favor/support phone band expansion
at the expense of the CW/digital portions of the bands.

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden will be on the
users of non-phone modes.


And right there you have it!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike,

Don't read Bill's comments above as "NCI Policy" or "NCI Goals/Agenda"
... that's
simply not the case.

Bill's just stating the obvious. (And since what CW fans refer to as
"the CW
bands" are actually the "non-SSB/phone, CW/narrowband digital modes
bands," the occupancy thereof that Bill refers to need not be solely
CW users, but users
of other digital modes as well.

Collectively, they (CW and digital users) need to "use it or lose it"
in a long-term,
practical sense (even ARRL says "use it or lose it" ... see Dave
Sumner's recent
column on the new channels near 5 MHz). That, I am sure, is what Bill
meant when he said "The burden will be on the users of non-phone
modes."

HOWEVER, phone band expansion is NOT an NCI agenda ... the ARRL has,
though, asked the FCC in the past to expand the phone bands by
"refarming" the Novice bands ... and, if the FCC were to see that
roughly half of our HF bands were grossly underutilized, they might, of
their own volition, decide to
do some "refarming" in the form of phone band expansion.

As I have said over and over, I would NOT favor/support phone band
expansion at the expense of the CW/digital portions of the bands.

Carl - wk3c


I would, though, but I have no connection with NCI

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient

Can't we all just get along?

Alun Palmer wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:


Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden will be on the
users of non-phone modes.


And right there you have it!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike,

Don't read Bill's comments above as "NCI Policy" or "NCI Goals/Agenda"
... that's
simply not the case.

Bill's just stating the obvious. (And since what CW fans refer to as
"the CW
bands" are actually the "non-SSB/phone, CW/narrowband digital modes
bands," the occupancy thereof that Bill refers to need not be solely
CW users, but users
of other digital modes as well.

Collectively, they (CW and digital users) need to "use it or lose it"
in a long-term,
practical sense (even ARRL says "use it or lose it" ... see Dave
Sumner's recent
column on the new channels near 5 MHz). That, I am sure, is what Bill
meant when he said "The burden will be on the users of non-phone
modes."

HOWEVER, phone band expansion is NOT an NCI agenda ... the ARRL has,
though, asked the FCC in the past to expand the phone bands by
"refarming" the Novice bands ... and, if the FCC were to see that
roughly half of our HF bands were grossly underutilized, they might, of
their own volition, decide to
do some "refarming" in the form of phone band expansion.

As I have said over and over, I would NOT favor/support phone band
expansion at the expense of the CW/digital portions of the bands.

Carl - wk3c



I would, though, but I have no connection with NCI

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient

HAR! Funny I should come across this post immediately after telling
Carl that the whole thing isn't just about him.

There ya go!

- mike KB3EIA -