|
With CW gone, can the CW allocations be far behind?
"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. 73, de Hans, K0HB PS: There are no "exclusive CW allocations" below 50MHz. -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
In article , "Joe Collins"
writes: 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. 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 |
|
"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? |
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 - |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... 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 That's right Larry! The problem is CW may be "semi-officially" gone, but it's pungent aroma remains. To be honest I really do not think it makes a difference anyway now, as what young person in their right mind is going to consider a hobby full of tired old white men who only shop at the dollar store and "double" time and time again on the HF nets because they can't even HEAR each other in the first place thru their $2000 Icom and Yaesu HF radios? A casual tune thru 20/75/40 meters will convince anyone of this... Yack on boys! |
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? |
"K0HB" wrote in message news:ed9e3d3ed0c3403349a2a6882a98d900.128005@mygat e.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. 73, de Hans, K0HB PS: There are no "exclusive CW allocations" below 50MHz. Keep in mind that the US has over 600,000 amateurs. The only other country with similar numbers is Japan, most of whom are limited to very low power operation however. If Japan is excluded, all the other countries combined don't have as many amateurs as the US. The foreign countries do have band plans. Unfortunately they do not honor these band plans during contests. It is unlikely that the US would do any better in following voluntary band plans so with our numbers of hams, it may very well be wiser to keep regulated restrictions. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com