Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 03:37 AM
K0HB
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #2   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 04:06 AM
Larry Roll K3LT
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #4   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 08:03 AM
Steve Robeson, K4CAP
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #5   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 10:51 AM
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?


  #6   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 03:39 PM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 -

  #7   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 04:30 PM
Johnsie
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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!

  #8   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 09:06 PM
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?
  #9   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 11:08 PM
Dee D. Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

  #10   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 11:14 PM
Dee D. Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If you value SW or HAM radio.... yea right Antenna 60 June 12th 04 05:15 PM
FUD ALERT !!!!! (was With CW gone, can the CW allocations be far behind?) Carl R. Stevenson General 17 July 31st 03 11:11 PM
With CW gone, can the CW allocations be far behind? Dee D. Flint General 18 July 25th 03 01:13 AM
With CW gone, can the CW allocations be far behind? Dee D. Flint Policy 1 July 21st 03 08:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017