"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Well, folks, there it is -- as I've been saying for years, it's all
about
getting a microphone in hand and yakking away!

73 de Larry, K3LT


What's the difference between yakking using a microphone, or yakking
using a
CW key or paddle?

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

Don't look now, but yakking into a microphone is something that anyone
can do without learning any new communications skills.


Oh, duh...I should have seen that spin coming.


Use of Morse/CW
requires the acquisition of a new, very useful comm skill (Morse code) and
the patience and initiative to develop this skill adequately to become an
efficient, effective CW operator. The content of the "yakking" may be the
same, but the difference is that the CW operator is yakking in a totally
different way, using a skill and mode which offers benefits and advantages
not found in voice modes.


Simply your opinion. The trouble with you is you truly believe everyone
else has to have your opinion, too.


Since you have no practical on-the-air experience using CW, I don't
expect you to appreciate this, and consider you to be unqualified to
render an opinion on the subject.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Uh huh. That's why you spent so much time, eh?

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Kim:

Don't look now, but yakking into a microphone is something that anyone
can do without learning any new communications skills.


Oh, duh...I should have seen that spin coming.

Kim:

That wasn't "spin" -- it was a simple statement of fact. However, I guess that

you are too intellectually immature to understand the difference.

Use of Morse/CW
requires the acquisition of a new, very useful comm skill (Morse code) and
the patience and initiative to develop this skill adequately to become an
efficient, effective CW operator. The content of the "yakking" may be the
same, but the difference is that the CW operator is yakking in a totally
different way, using a skill and mode which offers benefits and advantages
not found in voice modes.

Simply your opinion.

No, just more facts, Kim.

The trouble with you is you truly believe everyone else has to have your
opinion, too.

No, but I expect everyone else to be able to process reality in rational
manner.

Since you have no practical on-the-air experience using CW, I don't
expect you to appreciate this, and consider you to be unqualified to
render an opinion on the subject.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Uh huh. That's why you spent so much time, eh?

Typically unresponsive answer, Kim. You're out of your depth here, to a degree
which would be quite embarrassing to anyone with the emotional and
intellectual maturity to understand the concept. Your responses on virtually
any
topic at hand are uniformly childlike and devoid of any evidence of
well-reasoned
logic. For the most part, you simply parrot or show approval for things other
people say -- as if that contributed something of value to the discussion,
which
it does not. Participation in this newsgroup is way over your head, Kim --
which isn't saying much about you!

I now await one of your typically asinine replies.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Kim W5TIT wrote:


What's the difference between yakking using a microphone, or yakking using a
CW key or paddle?

Functionally, not very much.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"K0HB" wrote in message news:ed9e3d3ed0c3403349a2a6882a98d900.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
"Joe Collins" wrote in message


....what will happen to the exclusive CW allocations....

Except in the USA, most amateurs do not labor under "sub-bands" based on
mode. As an example Canadian amateur have no such restrictions. It's a
source of continuing wonder to me that the FCC continues to arbitrarily
slice and dice the bands based on mode, license class, power levels, and
similar artificial constructs of their imagination.

I imagine that the "class" restrictions will fade soon.

As for mode restrictions, see my comment on Dee's post...Perhaps
if we consider these as "wideband" and "narrowband" allocations it
would be more palatable to all (or at least more)?

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: There are no "exclusive CW allocations" below 50MHz.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ilgate.org,
K0HB wrote:

Except in the USA, most amateurs do not labor under "sub-bands" based on
mode. As an example Canadian amateur have no such restrictions. It's a
source of continuing wonder to me that the FCC continues to arbitrarily
slice and dice the bands based on mode, license class, power levels, and
similar artificial constructs of their imagination.

Not only that but the stupid allocation of the 7.00-7.100 as a CW
only band makes 40 meters almost unusable outside of the U.S. That's
our entire 40 meter band, and so we can't work the states without spilt
operation, which doesn't often work because we are swamped with European
brodcasters.

We can't work locally, because by convention, we use ssb in the upper
half and get destroyed by all those digital signals that come from the
U.S. and clobber us.

IMHO the best thing to do is open 7.050-7.100 for ssb in the U.S. and move
the digital stuff to the old novice band.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson 972-54-608-069
Do sysadmins count networked sheep?

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
In article ilgate.org,
K0HB wrote:

Except in the USA, most amateurs do not labor under "sub-bands" based on
mode. As an example Canadian amateur have no such restrictions. It's a
source of continuing wonder to me that the FCC continues to arbitrarily
slice and dice the bands based on mode, license class, power levels, and
similar artificial constructs of their imagination.

Not only that but the stupid allocation of the 7.00-7.100 as a CW
only band makes 40 meters almost unusable outside of the U.S. That's
our entire 40 meter band, and so we can't work the states without spilt
operation, which doesn't often work because we are swamped with European
brodcasters.

We can't work locally, because by convention, we use ssb in the upper
half and get destroyed by all those digital signals that come from the
U.S. and clobber us.

IMHO the best thing to do is open 7.050-7.100 for ssb in the U.S. and move
the digital stuff to the old novice band.

Geoff.

The recent WRC conference has directed broadcasters to move out of the 7.00
to 7.200 segment by 2009 and that will become a ham only band worldwide.

Opening up 7.050 to 7.100 for ssb in the US won't solve your problems. You
will still get clobbered by the US digital signals as they won't move. It's
too well established in the band plans for people to change.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article ,
(Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes:

In article ilgate.org,
K0HB wrote:

Except in the USA, most amateurs do not labor under "sub-bands" based on
mode. As an example Canadian amateur have no such restrictions. It's a
source of continuing wonder to me that the FCC continues to arbitrarily
slice and dice the bands based on mode, license class, power levels, and
similar artificial constructs of their imagination.

Not only that but the stupid allocation of the 7.00-7.100 as a CW
only band makes 40 meters almost unusable outside of the U.S.

Sounds like anti-American arrogance.....

There are no CW-only American subbands below 50 MHz. They're all shared with
'phone and image modes.

That's
our entire 40 meter band,

Because YOUR GOVERNMENTS (R1 and R3) want it that way. Been that way since
before WW2.

and so we can't work the states without spilt
operation, which doesn't often work because we are swamped with European
brodcasters.

So get your governments to get them to move.

We can't work locally, because by convention, we use ssb in the upper
half and get destroyed by all those digital signals that come from the
U.S. and clobber us.

If you think digital is bad, what do you think would happen with SSB?

IMHO the best thing to do is open 7.050-7.100 for ssb in the U.S. and move
the digital stuff to the old novice band.

Uh huh. Then it will be SSB and AM from the USA clobbering you instead of
digital. Guess which group tends to run more power? The US power limit is 1500
W peak output.

One of the main reasons the US has limited 'phone bands is to give those
outside the US a place to work without being clobbered by high powered US
'phones.

R1 and R3 are supposed to get 7100-7200 over the next few years, and the SWBC
move out.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Joe Collins wrote:
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?
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.

This cannot be, for no one wants to take anything away from Morse code
users.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo wrote:

This cannot be, for no one wants to take anything away from Morse code
users.

Why not, 8 years ago, the Arrl did a survey. They asked amateurs who had
passed a morse code exam if they EVER used morse code. Two out of three
responded "no". I.e. 2/3's of the hams surveyed NEVER used morse code.

Of course in those days they spun it as "1 out 3 sometimes uses morse code".

So if it came to a vote you'd have a hard time keeping things as they are.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson 972-54-608-069
Do sysadmins count networked sheep?

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo wrote:

This cannot be, for no one wants to take anything away from Morse code
users.

Why not, 8 years ago, the Arrl did a survey. They asked amateurs who had
passed a morse code exam if they EVER used morse code. Two out of three
responded "no". I.e. 2/3's of the hams surveyed NEVER used morse code.

Of course in those days they spun it as "1 out 3 sometimes uses morse
code".

So if it came to a vote you'd have a hard time keeping things as they are.

Geoff.

The ARRL had a new survey in the last 6 months. Half of the respondants use
morse any where from occasionally to 100% of the time. Morse code usage
appears to be on the rise. In the past year, participation in the ARRL
Morse contests showed an increase of 20% over the previous year.
Participation in the voice contests was practically the same as last year
with virtually no growth.

So that 8 year old survey does not reflect today's situation.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE