"Jim Hampton" wrote:
Mike, I agree it *is* a reasonable argument. Myself, I would prefer that a
portion of the bands be reserved for digital modes (including cw) in the
same manner that many parking lots used to have a number of spaces reserved
for small cars (I haven't seen that many in some time since cars have shrunk
considerably since the 70s). My fear is that some of the yahoos with 5 KW
capability would love to wreck havoc in the low ends of the various amateur
bands using voice modes. Besides, it makes it easier to find a station
using a mode that you may wish to use if the bands are segmented somewhat to
use.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

It is not a reasonable argument. It has logical and technical
flaws which make that particular commentary quite worthless.

"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Stu Parker wrote:

But the point is well-taken. If CW is to be removed as a
*requirement* for a ham license, then its special status has
evaporated.

That is an absurd statement which cannot be supported logically.
(It says: The apples are ripe, so lets pick the oranges today.)

All that has happened is that CW has changed its status from a
separately tested requirement, to being one of many modes which
random questions on the written exam will refer to. That change
affects the *testing* only; it has *nothing* to do with the
technical requirements which are the basis for band allocation.
(Testing is apples; band allocation is oranges.)

There are many modes with "special status", none of which have
ever been a "requirement" for a ham license. CW is now (or
shortly will be) no different, in that respect. We still have
"special status" in band allocations for digital modes, slow
scan TV, SSB, AM, FM, and yes, CW. The basis for those
allocations has not changed.

The allocations may indeed be ripe for a few changes, but not
because the test requirements were changed.

Why give it any band-plan perks at all? CW operators can
already operate in the phone bands (most of them don't, but that's a
free choice), so why not accord the phone users the same freedom of
choice?

That is not technically sound.

An essentially narrow band mode like CW is not nearly the
interference problem to wide band modes like SSB and AM that the
wide band modes are to the narrow band modes. Hence, no phone
in the CW band by regulation, but the same is not required to
keep CW out of the phone band.

Not that it would hurt anything to ban CW from the phone bands,
just that it isn't needed.

I'd be in favor of reserving a very small portion of each HF band for
rtty, psk31, etc., but I'd let all modes permitted by an operator's
license be used everywhere else.

A more reasonable approach is the current arrangement, though it
probably is time to consider some adjustments to the amount of
spectrum allocated to narrow band digital modes vs. wide band
phone modes.

A shift of 25 to 100 KHz from most of the HF CW bands over to
the phone bands would not necessarily be a bad thing. But it
would certainly cause a lot of noise if it were proposed, and
hence might take many years to accomplish. Therefore it
probably should be proposed now, and in 20 years when it becomes
reality, it will only be 10-15 years late... ;-)

Regardless, it is _technically_ not wise to allow wide band
operation in the narrow band digital band segments, and for
that reason I doubt the FCC will ever entertain the idea.

In other words, it is legitimate and useful to reevaluate the entire
band-plan structure of the Amateur Radio Service, and it is even
thinkable that what is commonly called the "cw portion" of the bands
should be reallocated.

That paragraph is correct. It's just the ideas given above for
the causative factors, the affected factors, and what the
methods should be that were wrong!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)