In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) But note this plain, simple fact: Almost all of
the FCC enforcement actions for "jerk-like" on-air
behavior (obscenity, jamming, failure to ID, exceeeding
license privileges, etc., etc.) are against hams using
PHONE modes, not CW/Morse or data modes. ALL of us have
taken written tests detailing what we should and should
not do on the air, but it seems like violations are much
more prevalent among the talkers than the brasspounders
or keyboarders. Why?


Very simple answer, Jim. The FCC has limited personnel today. The few they
have simply don't have the time to sit around listening, as code users pound
out their incredibly slow conversations, to catch violations.

HAW!

Actually, the differences in violations between the various modes isn't
that hard to understand. The phone modes dominate ham radio usage, therefore
it should be obvious more violations will occur in those modes.

True to a point - but HF/MF usage isn't that much slanted towards 'phone. The
ratio of cited violations is far greater than the ratio of users.

And since enforcement is complaint-driven, FCC monitoring activity isn't a
factor.

In addition,
phone users exchange information at a greater rate when compared to CW users

Some do. But in general, decent CW ops exchange info at a rate that is close to
that of people talking. Although the raw WPM is less, CW uses abbreviations and
prosigns, while 'phone tends to be full of pauses, redundancies and phonetics.

and conversations occur more often when compared to data users. Both of
these lead to greater opportunities for violations to occur. If all these
differences were factored in, I suspect the differences in violations would
be far less.

I don't think so. The worst I've ever heard on the CW bands was one ham calling
another a lid for tuning up and calling a DX station on the DX's freq after the
DX had clearly stated he was working split. The worst I've heard on the 'phone
bands I am too embarrassed to even describe.

It should be noted that the vast majority of hams behave very appropriately on
the
bands, regardless of mode or license class. But it only takes a few bad apples
to make all of us look bad.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

But it only takes a few bad apples to make all
of us look bad.


And the FCC should go after those bad apples, whatever their license
class. Ham operators should also informally ostracize the bad apples by not
talking to them or inviting them to participate in other activities. Like
the troublemakers in these newsgroups, these people are seeking an audience.
Deprive them of that and they often change their ways fairly quickly.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

But it only takes a few bad apples to make all
of us look bad.

And the FCC should go after those bad apples, whatever their license
class.

I agree 100%. But FCC's are very limited, thanks to the mandate to "get the
government off your back" from 20+ years ago. And the general unpopularity of
things like taxes.

Ham operators should also informally ostracize the bad apples by not
talking to them or inviting them to participate in other activities.

I agree 100%. And many of us do.

But there are those who don't accept our "old fashioned values" and traditions.
Like not cussing or jamming on the air. Did ostracizing clean up 3950, 14313 or
W6NUT?

Like
the troublemakers in these newsgroups, these people are seeking an audience.
Deprive them of that and they often change their ways fairly quickly.

Sometimes. OTOH they sometimes cluster together and reinforce each other when
that is done. We had an example of that a few years ago on a local repeater.
Solution was to shut down the repeater when the bad apples showed up, which
deprived everyone of its use.

Total dependence on enforcement and peer group rejection is not adequate if
basic "social" values are not inculcated into people's thinking.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 06 Aug 2003 22:21:48 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Sometimes. OTOH they sometimes cluster together and reinforce each
other when that is done. We had an example of that a few years ago on
a local repeater. Solution was to shut down the repeater when the bad
apples showed up, which deprived everyone of its use.

We ran into this in the 70s and 80s in San Francisco. The problem
there was that the goal of the "bad apples" was to shut the repeater
down.

After we hauled one of the ringleaders into Federal court on the
complaint of the N. Cal. DX Club (it was pure coincidence that the
judge was a classmate of the chief complainant) the problem abated
somewhat and the yoyos gathered on one particular machine which
gets shut down from time to time. And this was nothing compared to
the NUT machine.

Total dependence on enforcement and peer group rejection is not adequate if
basic "social" values are not inculcated into people's thinking.

For sure.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

And the FCC should go after those bad apples, whatever their license
class.

Dream on, cant wait till the CBplussers start filling up HF, and you all start
crying to the FCC. I will be setting here laughing my ASS off

(N2EY) wrote


But note this plain, simple fact: Almost all of the FCC enforcement actions for
"jerk-like" on-air behavior (obscenity, jamming, failure to ID, exceeeding
license privileges, etc., etc.) are against hams using PHONE modes, not
CW/Morse or data modes. ALL of us have taken written tests detailing what we
should and should not do on the air, but it seems like violations are much more
prevalent among the talkers than the brasspounders or keyboarders. Why?

Well, it's certainly clear that if the CW test reduces jerks on CW,
then a talking test would reduce jerks who talk on their radios?

PTTI! Damn, Jim, what a concept!

Or maybe your whole jeremiad about FCC enforcement means that FCC
monitors are no-coders who wouldn't recognize those infractions when
done in Morse.

Or maybe attributing a lower "jerk quotient" to Morse operators is the
lamest excuse EVER for keeping a Morse examination.

Sunuvagun!

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

Put it that way, Mike, yes. It is hard to argue that removing *any*
part of
a test is not a reduction in the amount of knowledge needed to pass a
test. But, that is simply a word game and nothing else.

It's more than a word game. Encouraging radio knowledge of all types is
one of
the most basic reasons to have the ARS exist at all. The tests are there
to
insure a minimum knowledge level. ("Knowledge" including skills, concepts,
facts, etc.)

The point is, what does passing a CW test prove in the way of
knowledge--other than that one can pass a CW test?

It proves that:

1) The person has learned a useful radio skill at a very basic level.

But what about Morse is so important that it is "equal to all else" in terms
of a "pass or don't get an HF license" ???

Actually, I think the written test should be broken down into subelements that
each require a passing grade. Safety, Regs, and Theory would be one possible
split.

2) The person was willing and able to devote the time and effort necessary
to learn that skill.

This goes to "work ethic" and "quality of operator" arguments that have
already been rejected by the FCC ... let's not keep beating that horse.

I'm simply pointing out what passing the test proves. Doesn't prove the test
must exist.

3) The person has been exposed to a useful, widely-used-by-hams radio
communications mode other than voice or data.

So???

That exposure is a good thing. Doesn't mean it must exist, though.

You are mistaken on several counts there, Kim.

1) The written tests are what they are. They are in a continuing state of
development.

2) ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a ham who has Morse skills knows more about
amateur radio than one with no Morse skills.

Correction ... a ham who has Morse skills is able to operate better Morse
than one with no Morse skills. PERIOD.

No, that's not correct, Carl.

Since Morse code is a big part of amateur radio, the person with Morse skills
knows more about amateur radio than the person without those skills IF ALL ELSE
IS EQUAL. The same can be said for, say, the ham who understands and can use
Ohm's Law as opposed to the ham who cannot. Or the ham who can use the standard
phonetics skillfully, as opposed to the person who can't.

3) Morse/CW has certain advantages to hams beyond being "just another
mode".
4) Morse/CW is more than "just a tradition". It's a useful mode of radio
communication enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of hams.

So?

So it makes sense to promote things that are useful to hams.

That is no reason to make it a requirement,

Sure it is. But it's just one reason.

when the majority of hams
and would-be hams have no desire to use Morse.

How do you know they don't want to use Morse, Carl?

Look at how much it takes just to become a physician. The training and
testing required is phenomenal, and designed to weed out the incapable. The
hard
work and dedication required just to get into medical school are
extraordinary,
and yet that's just the beginning. I could go on and on, but you get the
picture.

Apples vs. oranges ... providing medical treatment is often a life and death
thing ... being able to operate/or not operate Morse is not.

You missed the point completely, Carl.

The bit about doctors was simply to point out that no test is a perfect "jerk
filter". Not even the rigorous training physicians go through results in a
completely "jerk free" profession. No amount of testing that is reasonable
could result in a "jerk free" ARS.

As far as the "character filter" thing goes ... the FCC has already ruled
on that ... it doesn't fly.

You miss the point: No test is a perfect filter. The 5 wpm code test certainly
isn't.

Why? I'd rather have an ARS consisting of a few hundred thousand
interested,
active, dedicated, skilled, knowledgeable hams than one of a few million
inactive, apathetic, unskilled, ignorant ones who could not care less.
Code test or no code test.

You seem to leap to the conclusion that folks who are not interested in
Morse fall into the "inactive, apathetic, unskilled, ignorant" category.

WHERE do you get THAT?

Look again at what I wrote - I'm saying I prefer quality over quantity.

Note the last line: "CODE TEST OR NO CODE TEST"

False assumption, not based in any factual reality.;

Would you rather have lots of hams who are inactive, apathetic, unskilled and
ignorant, or fewer hams that are the opposite, Carl?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Dick Carroll;"
writes:

You see, sweetheart, this is just the kind of thing I'm talking about. It
is quite juvenile to be making insulting hand gestures on Usenet!

Naw, Larry, she's mooning you !

Dick:

I don't think so. If she were mooning me, it would be more like this:

|
|
___________________|___________________

Her puny little __|__ would be more like J.Lo. mooning me! And nobody's
ever gonna mistake Kim's derrière for J.Lo's!!! Kim was clearly making a
hand gesture.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

Is there a CW equivalent of the W6NUT repeater, 14,313 or 3950?

We're not quite above such things.

Yes, we are.

Maybe your "we" but I've run into some other "we's" on CW who are not
as lily-white. The infamous antics in the CW pileups on Don Miller
come to mind for one.

That was 35+ years ago. If you have to go back that far to find a one bad guy
on CW, that's pretty good, I think.

You oughta been there the nite in
the early '70s when the Big Guns got together and decided to hammer
Radio Moscow off a freq around 7.030. You bet it worked, Moscow moved
up the band and didn't come back.

That was hams uniting to repel an illegal intruder. 7.000 to 7.100 has been
worldwide exclusive amateur since at least 1929.

Was there any enforcement action from FCC?

I dunno. If the feds did happen to be listening they probably enjoyed
it.

'zactly. Riley has said you that an authorized station is not protected from
interference of any kind. Radio Moscow had plenty of SWBC bandspace to play in.


73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

40 m is a band, not a frequency. Big difference between plopping down
an SSB signal on 7030 and 7230.

I mean between 7040 and 7100, which is phone, except here.

"Here" is all of Region 2. A big part of the world.

No, only the USA, it's still phone in the rest of R2

No, it isn't. Other modes are authorized, not just 'phone.

I think you'll find it isn't being fixed.

Sure it is, but it will take time. Before the end of the decade
7000-7200 will be worldwide exclusive amateur. That's double what
Region 1 and Region 3 have now. It will make sense for those regions to
move their 'phone up above 7100 and leave below 7100 to CW and digital.


Not while the US has CW in 7100-7150. As long as that's the case it makes
more sense _to_them_ to leave 7000-7100 unchanged and split the 'new'
7100-7200 50/50. Net gain to you - zero.

If it gets the foreign 'phones off of 7030, it's a gain.

The ARRL bandplan is the only
one out of step, so nobody else is likely to change theirs,
notwithstanding Europe and some other areas getting 7100-7200 as
additional spectrum in 2007.

What part of the world will not get 7100-7200?

None

There you are.

And why should Region 2
change now, with the band getting wider?

You mean the US, and I don't suppose the ARRL will change

It's not just ARRL but FCC.

All that will happen is that a DX window will
appear from 7150-7200, but the DX will continue to use phone everywhere
they use it now - indefinitely. Sorry to be the one to break that to
you!

So their lack of a bandplan and good manners should cause the USA to
follow their lead? I think not!

They have a bandplan. Phone stays above at least 7040, except 7030 in R3.

There are Canadians operating LSB on 7030.

That's not the bandplan you want, but it's a bandplan. The reference to
good manners I don't follow.

The folks who don't follow the bandplan have bad manners. Having a Canadian SSB
net on 7030 when they have 7000-7030 is bad manners.

I don't expect the USA to follow anyone's
lead. Just don't be surprised when no-one follows the USA's lead either.

And the result is chaos.

800 is pretty high. 600-700 is more common among CW ops. The SSB audio
passband is typically 300-2700 Hz, so 600 or even 800 is pretty low.
1500 would be smack in the middle.

True enough

This of course would be what you
would get if they netted onto the SSB and then offset by their usual
amount.

There is no offset in CW. The carriers are all on the same frequency.

Point is that what sounds like "right on top" may not sound that way
to the other guy.

It depends which side of the nominal carrier frequency the CW signal is
on. However, assuming my SSB filter is working, I would say they were
low, i.e. on the same side as the LSB sideband, or I would be filtering
them out. This also puts them almost in the middle of the SSB signal,
doesn't it?

No. Their tone would be 1500 if it were in the middle.

Listen to a busy CW contest with a wide (AM bandwidth) rx and it
sounds like a pile of intentional inteference. Switch in appropriate
filters and you find that almost all of the stations have spaced
themselves so they don't overlap.

Neither am I
talking about weak phone stations, although they could be weak at
some other QTH.

That's another point.

Of course the DX 'phones could have switched to CW and answered
the CQers, then politely asked them to move.

But they didn't, did they?

*My Southgate Type 7 has two cascaded 8 pole 500 Hz crystal
filters, giving an effective bandwidth of less than 400 Hz and
very steep filter skirts. And it has an audio LC filter as well.


So, if say, you called QRU? on 7080 and there was a strong signal
SSB QSO in progress, would you be able to tell? This is a genuine
question.

I would listen first and steer clear of anyhting that sounds like
SSB. Then I'd send "IE" a few times to test the waters. If I heard
something start up when I did that, I'd move.

But usually I am below 7060. Above about 7060 is data and foreign SSB
country.

I
don't posses a CW filter.

One of the reasons some hams get turned off to CW is that they use
equipment that really isn't meant for the mode. Most HF rigs today
are primarily SSB rigs with CW tacked on. Some are pretty good, many
are awful.


If I need it I have an outboard audio filter

Ugh. Audio filters are no substitute for IF filtering. And unless the
AGC is turned off, QRM can dominate the receiver.


True, but I don't really need a narrow CW filter for anything

Data modes.

(a Radio Shack DSP unit,
which is fairly basic and suffers from low audio output). I hadn't
thought about that when I said I had no CW filter. It tends to 'take
off' on 20 with RF getting inside it, but it's OK on 40.

What sort of rig?

I use an IC-729 in my shack. Excellent receiver RF performance.

Compared to what? No offense, but there are some really good rigs out there.

Not very
good audio, though. Ironically it has nowhere to fit a narrow SSB filter,
but has a place for a CW filter (nothing in there, of course).

Couldn't a narrow SSB filter be put in the CW slot?

Not the
Rolls Royce of radios, but I'm not overloaded with cash.

The Southgate Type 7 cost me less than $100 to build.

I am guessing you would hear something,though?

Depends on the situation. Usually SSB sounds like monkey chatter
through a narrow filter. But near the edges it can be very weak or
inaudible.

As I've explained, I think this is going on in the middle of the SSB
sigs, which is another reason to be suspicious

Sure. But 1500 is the middle, not 800.

The best solution is for wide and narrow modes to have their own
subbands. They simply don't mix well.

Yes

So when will the rest of the world get on the beam and have nonphone
subbands?

They do, and they have done as long as I remember. In some countries they
are voluntary, and in others they are compulsory, but nowhere are they as
wide as in the USA.

Time for them to get on the beam, then.

A notch filter can remove a carrier or CW signal.

True, not that I have one, though

Well, there you have it.

73 de Jim, N2EY