| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
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 |
"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 |
|
|
"N2EY" wrote
35% answered "Never" 37% answered "Rarely" 27% answered "Regularly" 1% did not answer. 64% (37+27) sometimes use Morse code, according to that survey. That's a fact, not spin. Facts (and spin) are in the eye of the beholder, Jim. Your "64% sometimes use Morse code" is trumped by the fellow who uses the same numbers to factually state that "72% (35+37) of the hams surveyed rarely or never use Morse code". 73, de Hans, K0HB ____________________________ / \ | They called me mad, and I | |\/\/\/| / called them mad, but damn \ | | | them, they outvoted me. | | (o)(o) | | c _) | | | '___| \_ __________________________/ | / | / /____\ _/ / \ -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: 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. That's pretty close - 1996 They asked amateurs who had passed a morse code exam if they EVER used morse code. No, you are mistaken. On several counts. They asked 1100 US hams, chosen at random. Of these, 100 were Novices and 200 each Techs, Tech Pluses, Generals, Advanceds and Extras. So they asked hams who had not taken a code test as well as hams who had. The question was "How much do you operate Morse code?" and there were only three possible answers: "Regularly", "Rarely" and "Never". No definitions of what those terms mean, no questions on other modes, etc. (After all, a ham who is not on the air at all never uses Morse code on the air). Two out of three responded "no". I.e. 2/3's of the hams surveyed NEVER used morse code. Wrong again! 35% answered "Never" 37% answered "Rarely" 27% answered "Regularly" 1% did not answer. It is obvious that the question is so flawed as to be meaningless. For example, how much Morse operation is "regular"? Note that the question doesn't specify HF operation, or ask if the ham is active at all, if he/she is equipped for HF operation, etc. etc. Of course in those days they spun it as "1 out 3 sometimes uses morse code". Wrong again! 64% (37+27) sometimes use Morse code, according to that survey. That's a fact, not spin. So if it came to a vote you'd have a hard time keeping things as they are. Maybe. Try this "survey": Actually listen to the CW/digital subbands and see how much activity there really is. Try 40 meters below 7050 some evening. 73 de Jim, N2EY Yep for a 'so called dead mode' (cw) there sure seems to be a LOT of activity in the real world. Dan/W4NTI |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: 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. That's pretty close - 1996 They asked amateurs who had passed a morse code exam if they EVER used morse code. No, you are mistaken. On several counts. They asked 1100 US hams, chosen at random. Of these, 100 were Novices and 200 each Techs, Tech Pluses, Generals, Advanceds and Extras. So they asked hams who had not taken a code test as well as hams who had. The question was "How much do you operate Morse code?" and there were only three possible answers: "Regularly", "Rarely" and "Never". No definitions of what those terms mean, no questions on other modes, etc. (After all, a ham who is not on the air at all never uses Morse code on the air). Two out of three responded "no". I.e. 2/3's of the hams surveyed NEVER used morse code. Wrong again! 35% answered "Never" 37% answered "Rarely" 27% answered "Regularly" 1% did not answer. It is obvious that the question is so flawed as to be meaningless. For example, how much Morse operation is "regular"? Note that the question doesn't specify HF operation, or ask if the ham is active at all, if he/she is equipped for HF operation, etc. etc. Of course in those days they spun it as "1 out 3 sometimes uses morse code". Wrong again! 64% (37+27) sometimes use Morse code, according to that survey. That's a fact, not spin. So if it came to a vote you'd have a hard time keeping things as they are. Maybe. Try this "survey": Actually listen to the CW/digital subbands and see how much activity there really is. Try 40 meters below 7050 some evening. 73 de Jim, N2EY Yep for a 'so called dead mode' (cw) there sure seems to be a LOT of activity in the real world. Dan/W4NTI What makes you think CW is a dead mode? Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... 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 What's the difference between yakking using a microphone, or yakking using a CW key or paddle? Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "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 Forget it Dee. You cant convince the no coder. They believe their own propaganda. What I would like to know is where are our NCI buddies? Aren't they against this sort of thing? Where is Carl jumping to our defense? Bill Sohl? Where have ya gone, Joe DiMaggio? |
Oh no! And "Skylab is falling" cried Chicken Little....
"Joe Collins" wrote in message ... 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. |
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. 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. 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 |
|
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 - |
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
On 22 Jul 2003 04:25:57 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote: 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. On that note, we're still waiting for your opinion on eating elephant dung - good idea or bad? 73 DE John, KC2HMZ John, Many years ago one of the popular magazines (Sat Eve Post, Colliers, Readers Digest?) had a reader-contributed feature called "The Perfect Squelch". Your comment above would surely have been a winner! 73, de Hans, K0HB -- "They called me mad and I called them mad, but damn them, they outvoted me!" -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
K0HB wrote:
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message On 22 Jul 2003 04:25:57 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote: 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. On that note, we're still waiting for your opinion on eating elephant dung - good idea or bad? 73 DE John, KC2HMZ John, Many years ago one of the popular magazines (Sat Eve Post, Colliers, Readers Digest?) had a reader-contributed feature called "The Perfect Squelch". Your comment above would surely have been a winner! Except for dung beetles! There was a good Nova program on them. Glad I didn't have to do the camera work. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Robert Casey" wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: 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. If this is the case, then Morse code has a good future. No need to worry that you won't be able to find someone to have a QSO when you do a CQ. Its not a problem for a couple of decades anyway. As soon as the 'flood' of no code braindeads show up on phone...CW will be so full you can't get a beep in. Dan/W4NTI |
|
In article ilgate.org, "Hans
Kohb" writes: "N2EY" wrote 35% answered "Never" 37% answered "Rarely" 27% answered "Regularly" 1% did not answer. 64% (37+27) sometimes use Morse code, according to that survey. That's a fact, not spin. Facts (and spin) are in the eye of the beholder, Jim. "Reality does not care what you believe" Your "64% sometimes use Morse code" is trumped by the fellow who uses the same numbers to factually state that "72% (35+37) of the hams surveyed rarely or never use Morse code". How is it trumped? Besides, the point of my post was that the original poster was way off on a number of things. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Hans,
I might *gently* remind folks that there are no limitations on CW either :)) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "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. -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 7/18/03 |
"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 , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: 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. On that note, we're still waiting for your opinion on eating elephant dung - good idea or bad? 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Bad. Very bad, indeed. Personally, I wouldn't do that. Your mileage may vary. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
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 |
On that note, we're still waiting for your opinion on eating elephant dung - good idea or bad? Tastes like crap. So I would recommend against it...... |
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:41:11 -0400, N2EY wrote:
In article , (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: 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. That's pretty close - 1996 They asked amateurs who had passed a morse code exam if they EVER used morse code. No, you are mistaken. On several counts. They asked 1100 US hams, chosen at random. Of these, 100 were Novices and 200 each Techs, Tech Pluses, Generals, Advanceds and Extras. So they asked hams who had not taken a code test as well as hams who had. The question was "How much do you operate Morse code?" and there were only three possible answers: "Regularly", "Rarely" and "Never". No definitions of what those terms mean, no questions on other modes, etc. (After all, a ham who is not on the air at all never uses Morse code on the air). Two out of three responded "no". I.e. 2/3's of the hams surveyed NEVER used morse code. Wrong again! 35% answered "Never" 37% answered "Rarely" 27% answered "Regularly" 1% did not answer. It is obvious that the question is so flawed as to be meaningless. For example, how much Morse operation is "regular"? It's only flawed for the purposes you're trying to put it to. Its original purpose was to gauge the level of interest based on use of Morse. For that purpose, it doesn't matter whether the respondent's use of Morse fits your definition of "regularly" -- or mine -- it matters only whether it fits the respondent's definition. Most of the cavilling about survey questions comes from misunderstanding the question's purpose and misuse of the results to try to "prove" things that the survey wasn't addressing. If you want to sample opinion on a topic, hire a reputable research firm to formulate and conduct a survey that will elicit the facts you want. Trying to hammer an existing survey into something that it wasn't designed to be is almost certain to lead to skewed conclusions. Note that the question doesn't specify HF operation, or ask if the ham is active at all, if he/she is equipped for HF operation, etc. etc. Of course in those days they spun it as "1 out 3 sometimes uses morse code". Wrong again! 64% (37+27) sometimes use Morse code, according to that survey. That's a fact, not spin. But as you point out, nobody really knows what "operate" means in this case. For example, if a person's entire use of Morse code is to copy repeater IDs, which they do by laboriously copying down the dots and dashes and then looking up the letters in a table, is that "operation" of Morse? The survey doesn't say. So if it came to a vote you'd have a hard time keeping things as they are. Maybe. Try this "survey": Actually listen to the CW/digital subbands and see how much activity there really is. Try 40 meters below 7050 some evening. That's a much better way to get a feel for the true level of interest. Signals on the air are a much better measure of what's popular in ham radio than any survey results or any amount of Usenet bloviating. Jon |
Jon Bloom wrote in message g...
If you want to sample opinion on a topic, hire a reputable research firm to formulate and conduct a survey that will elicit the facts you want. Thats what the ARRL should have done. |
Jon Bloom wrote in message g...
But as you point out, nobody really knows what "operate" means in this case. For example, if a person's entire use of Morse code is to copy repeater IDs, which they do by laboriously copying down the dots and dashes and then looking up the letters in a table, is that "operation" of Morse? The survey doesn't say. Hmmmm. Are you saying that the "Operate CW" numbers are inflated? |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
Not a problem...let all the no code braindeads have phone. I'll just run cw on top of them with my narrow filter. We already do that. They're never get it. Dan/W4NTI w3rv |
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:45 -0400, N2EY wrote:
Jon Bloom wrote in message g... On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:41:11 -0400, N2EY wrote: In article , (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: 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. That's pretty close - 1996 They asked amateurs who had passed a morse code exam if they EVER used morse code. No, you are mistaken. On several counts. They asked 1100 US hams, chosen at random. Of these, 100 were Novices and 200 each Techs, Tech Pluses, Generals, Advanceds and Extras. So they asked hams who had not taken a code test as well as hams who had. The question was "How much do you operate Morse code?" and there were only three possible answers: "Regularly", "Rarely" and "Never". No definitions of what those terms mean, no questions on other modes, etc. (After all, a ham who is not on the air at all never uses Morse code on the air). Two out of three responded "no". I.e. 2/3's of the hams surveyed NEVER used morse code. Wrong again! 35% answered "Never" 37% answered "Rarely" 27% answered "Regularly" 1% did not answer. It is obvious that the question is so flawed as to be meaningless. For example, how much Morse operation is "regular"? It's only flawed for the purposes you're trying to put it to. Its original purpose was to gauge the level of interest based on use of Morse. For that purpose, it doesn't matter whether the respondent's use of Morse fits your definition of "regularly" -- or mine -- it matters only whether it fits the respondent's definition. I disagree, Jon. You refuse to accept that the survey wasn't intended to answer the question you want answered. Too much is left to the respondent's interpretation. Too much for your purposes, yes. A person can have a 'high level of interest' in Morse, yet rarely or never operate, because of inactivity, equipment failure, etc. IOW a ham who rarely or never operates at all must, by definition, rarely or never operate Morse. A sizable percentage of those responding to the survey were completely inactive on ANY mode, so they probably answered the question "never". And that's just one problem. It's only a problem for you. Does once a year count as "regularly"? Does one day a month CW and all the rest 'phone constitute "rarely"? That judgement is left up to the individual responding. Most of the cavilling about survey questions comes from misunderstanding the question's purpose and misuse of the results to try to "prove" things that the survey wasn't addressing. As I understand it, the survey was trying to determine what position ARRL should take WRT code testing at a WRC in the late 1990s (1997, I think). So why do the questions beat about the bush so much? Why notjust ask those surveyed what they think FCC should do, and how much they operate CW? Because it's not a plebiscite. If you want to sample opinion on a topic, hire a reputable research firm to formulate and conduct a survey that will elicit the facts you want. Trying to hammer an existing survey into something that it wasn't designed to be is almost certain to lead to skewed conclusions. 2) The survey left itself wide open to all sorts of interpretations because it was not well designed. The fact that the League payed a professional does not mean they got a good survey. The fact that the survey doesn't answer the questions you want answered doesn't mean it's not a good survey, either. But as you point out, nobody really knows what "operate" means in this case. Sure they do. It means to have QSOs using the mode. To you. To everybody? Who knows? For example, if a person's entire use of Morse code is to copy repeater IDs, which they do by laboriously copying down the dots and dashes and then looking up the letters in a table, is that "operation" of Morse? The survey doesn't say. How many hams do you know do that? I've known a few over the years. I guess these days most repeaters have voice ID, though. I don't know any. I do know lots of hams who have 2-way QSOs on the amateur HF bands using CW, though. Maybe a better example: If you just listen around the band are you "operating?" I bet you would get less than complete consensus on that one. If you listen a lot but rarely transmit, are you operating "regularly" or "rarely"? So if it came to a vote you'd have a hard time keeping things as they are. Maybe. Try this "survey": Actually listen to the CW/digital subbands and see how much activity there really is. Try 40 meters below 7050 some evening. That's a much better way to get a feel for the true level of interest. Signals on the air are a much better measure of what's popular in ham radio than any survey results or any amount of Usenet bloviating. Then why was that question in the 1996 survey? I believe it was intended to provide background to the answers to the other questions in the survey. Much of the usefulness of surveys comes from crosstabbing of the results. The purpose of this survey was to sample opinions on Morse testing, not to nail down the percentages of operating time by mode. For the purposes of the survey, a simple indication of activity, as gauged by the member's own characterization, was sufficient. More would have been overkill and thus would have unneccesarily complicated the survey, leading to lower response rates -- to no good purpose. If you listen to the HF/MF amateur bands, Morse/CW is second in popularity only to SSB. So if we already know that, what's the point of surveying -- to learn something that we already know? I strongly suggest that a well-constructed survey/poll of the entire ARRL membership be conducted, and the results published in QST. Web polls and small samples are not necessarily indicative of the views of the membership. The last time such a survey was conducted was 1975. I know, I responded to it. My wife's first job was a part-time job at HQ opening the survey responses. (She was four years old at the time, of course!) The questions were extensive and the results published in QST. Why can't this be done today? Make it a tear-out sheet in QST and have everyone enter their member number to avoid dupes. I have no idea whether that will happen -- it wouldn't if it were up to me. I'd consider it a monumental waste of resources. Whatever position ARRL takes on this issue will be very unpopular with a large number of members and nonmembers alike, so it is important to be able to back up that position with solid data. A valid survey of the entire membership, backing up the ARRL position, can only serve to improve ARRL's credibility with both the amateur community and FCC, and increase support for the position chosen -- whatever it may be. Who could fault ARRL for going with the majority opinion of its entire membership? All of those who disagree with the result, of course! Too many amateurs, ARRL members or not, think that decisions are made in "ivory tower isolation", and that their views are not considered adequately when ARRL formulates a position. Polls won't change that. Those who dislike the result will just claim the poll questions were no good. (Oops!) While such a survey will not be free, it will be money well spent if the membership and amateur radio community perceives that ARRL is truly responding to member opinion and input. There's a difference between taking people's views into account and taking a direct vote. It's the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy. (Say, were you a Perot voter by any chance?) I don't quite understand why you think an all-inclusive vote should be taken when you don't even think the voters are smart enough to decide whether they operate CW "regularly" or "rarely"! On the other hand, if you are willing to spend the money to do the polling, please let us all know what results you get. If nothing else, it'll make good fodder for rrap. In fact, it may be advisable to survey every radio amateur in the US. Such a survey might change the way the ARRL is viewed by nonmembers on both sides of the issue. People's minds are well made up on this issue, and nothing anyone does is going to change that. Those who support Morse testing will be angry with the ARRL if it comes out for elimination of the test no matter how that decision was made. Those who favor elimination will be equally angry if the ARRL supports continuation of testing. And those of us who think far too much energy has already been wasted on this subject will groan yet again if ARRL spends any more substantial resources on it. Here are some suggested questions for the survey: [snip] That will all fit on one side of one sheet of paper. Return address on the back. Fold it over, put a stamp on and send it in. And then we hire the mail crew to open and the data-entry crew to enter the responses from a half million 14-question survey responses. This is your idea of money well spent? Why not? In my opinion, because it's a waste of resources -- time and money -- that would be better devoted to tackling the problems Amateur Radio faces that are important -- a list that does not, in my mind, include anything to do with Morse testing. Jon |
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:11:25 -0400, Brian wrote:
Jon Bloom wrote in message g... But as you point out, nobody really knows what "operate" means in this case. For example, if a person's entire use of Morse code is to copy repeater IDs, which they do by laboriously copying down the dots and dashes and then looking up the letters in a table, is that "operation" of Morse? The survey doesn't say. Hmmmm. Are you saying that the "Operate CW" numbers are inflated? No, I'm saying the survey measures the respondents opinions of their own levels of activity. What that means in objective terms is something on which you're free to speculate, although I can't imagine what useful result would obtain from such speculations. Jon |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: On that note, we're still waiting for your opinion on eating elephant dung - good idea or bad? Tastes like crap. So I would recommend against it...... I'm OTOH, haven't a clue as to what elephant dung tastes like, and I intend to keep it that way! However, since Bob has obviously tasted elephant dung, I will admit that he is qualified to evaluate it's taste. I will, from now on, defer to his judgment of the taste of elephant dung. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
Show me a truly impartial survey and I might actually consider joining the
Anti-Radio Relay League. ALL surveys are slanted in some direction or another, as to prove some point or theory. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... "Brian" wrote in message om... Jon Bloom wrote in message g... If you want to sample opinion on a topic, hire a reputable research firm to formulate and conduct a survey that will elicit the facts you want. Thats what the ARRL should have done. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:32 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com