wrote:

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

10 KC? Not enough. At least 25 per HF band.


Why so little?

I love code, too, but we are going to change, like
it or not. We need to work toward a "win-win" for
both sides of this argument, instead of ending-up
with a "lose-lose" by an "all or nothing" attitude.

One of the chief arguments against Code is the large
slice of spectrum needlessly allocated to it.
The new digital modes are a fact of life we
must accept, and they require spectrum.
That most hams want their CW freqs to end in "0" or "5"
is a matter of convention and laziness, not necessity.
10 KC will handle 15-18 CW QSOs at once with even
modest equipment, and it is rare during non-contest
days to hear that many in the present allocation on
any band at any one time.
After the Code requirement is dropped,
there will be far less CW operators- not more,
and they will need less dedicated spectrum.
Moreover, a request for a 10 or 15 kHz "preserve"
is much more likely to be granted, given the arguments
against the current CW spectrum alocations,
than asking for needless and wasteful swaths of
50 and 100 kHz. A compromise that gives
exclusivity and premium incentives in exchange
for the current wasted spectrum is a good deal
for both the digital and CW communities.

73 Dave S. AB5S

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY. No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

robert casey wrote:

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY. No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

well in the eyes of those that see CW under attack they do see still
see a need for a coded reservation, and they fear that they will lose
everything out side of it

an_old_friend wrote:
KY4Z wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Band allocation should be allocated on long term statistics generated in
regards to the modes used... (past year or two)

As CW continues its' drop, it needs less and less allocations... as
no-coders now enter CW will have to shrink to accommodate the new users
and their modes...

John

And yet His comments are some of the best I have seen in defense of
Code testing

Gee whillikers, Mr Wizard...Some of those very same sentiments
were uttered by other posters in this forum and you didn't hold the
same opinion for them...

Such as whom?

Such as me.

He addreses the reasoning to the Public Good tries to relive the FCC of
the Burdens involved

"addresses" "relieve"

all in all a decent defense of the indefensable

"Lying" is indefensable. "Deceit" is indefensable. "Child
Pornography" and "Spousal Abuse" are "indefensable.

Your placement of lying, Kiddy porn, and Spousal abuse on the same
level shows just how sick you truly are

Why?

I consider all of them equally offensive.

Each of them harm society in thier own right.

For example, look where lying has got you!

Seems to me he made some on-the-head comments.

it would to you

Becasue it did. Why do you think not?

but then you omitted the bonehead idea that It realy reuires some kind
of manual code tst in order to USE Morse Code

"really" "requires" "test"

It's not boneheaded. It's real.

Steve, K4YZ

David Stinson wrote:
wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
10 KC? Not enough. At least 25 per HF band.

Why so little?

I love code, too, but we are going to change, like
it or not.

I think the change will be far less than some expect.

Back in 1991 we got a nocodetest license for all of
VHF/UHF. Did we get lots more new hams in the 1991-2000
time period than we got in the 1982-1991 time period?

In 2000 the code test was reduced to 5 wpm only and the
writtens cut almost in half. Yet we have almost 10,000
fewer hams now than in 2000.

We need to work toward a "win-win" for
both sides of this argument, instead of ending-up
with a "lose-lose" by an "all or nothing" attitude.

Here's the win for Morse Code loving hams: Free space

Here's the win for non-Morse-Code loving hams: All the rest.

One of the chief arguments against Code is the large
slice of spectrum needlessly allocated to it.

*WHAT* large slice of spectrum?

There is currently *no* part of the HF/MF ham bands
for Morse Code only in the USA. Not one kHz. All of
the bandspace not allowed to voice/image is open to
digital/data modes like PSK31, MFSK, RTTY, etc.

The technical advances we keep being promised will
be in those modes, not in SSB.

The new digital modes are a fact of life we
must accept, and they require spectrum.

And they have it! Take 80 meters - from 3500 to 3750
is wide open to every digital mode you can imagine, as
long as it isn't digital voice.

That most hams want their CW freqs to end in "0" or "5"
is a matter of convention and laziness, not necessity.
10 KC will handle 15-18 CW QSOs at once with even
modest equipment, and it is rare during non-contest
days to hear that many in the present allocation on
any band at any one time.

Maybe where you are, but I hear a lot more than that on 40 meters at
night.

After the Code requirement is dropped,
there will be far less CW operators- not more,
and they will need less dedicated spectrum.

I would not be so sure.

Hams in Germany report *more* interest in Morse Code
among new hams, not less.

Without a test, new hams will learn Morse at a reasonable
speed (13-16 wpm) from the beginning, sending and receiving, rather
than just the bare minimum to pass the test.

Moreover, a request for a 10 or 15 kHz "preserve"
is much more likely to be granted, given the arguments
against the current CW spectrum alocations,
than asking for needless and wasteful swaths of
50 and 100 kHz.

That's not how FCC works.

Look at the history - every time a compromise has been offered, FCC
goes way beyond it.

Back in 1990, when FCC was pushing a nocodetest license, ARRL
and others suggested a limited-privileges VHF/UHF license. Low
power, no 2 meters, etc. FCC took that as an endorsement of
the nocodetest idea and simply dumped the code test for
Technician, which was not what was wanted at all.

In 1998-1999, various compromises were offered, like the 5 wpm General
and 12 wpm Extra. FCC just went to 5 wpm across the board.

The nocodetest folks don't offer any compromises. I say that
15% of each HF/MF band as Morse Code only space is perfectly
reasonable. The Morse Code using hams will flock there, and
leave the rest of the bands to other modes.

What possible reason is there not to? The voice and digital modes all
have more than 15%.

A compromise that gives
exclusivity and premium incentives in exchange
for the current wasted spectrum is a good deal
for both the digital and CW communities.

What wasted spectrum?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
Even today....well actually for
many years....the 80 meter band is a classic example of wasted space.
Mostly dead air in the "CW" allocations. In particular from
3.5 to 3.6.

I think you meant "3.6 to 3.7"

Lots of open space from 3.6 to 3.750 if you want to be open
minded on this
subject.

All of 80 meters is open to digital modes. You know, the
modes all those new, young, modern hams are going to use
when Element 1 goes away.

If there's so much room, then what's the problem making
3500 to 3575 Morse Code only?

40 is another case and it is gonna be real tough to put that
mess straight..
hi.

Not really. The mess is due to the rest of the world wanting
7100-7300 for SWBC. That's going away, even as we speak, and
more and more of the rest of the world is letting their hams
have 7100-7200. Eventually 7000-7300 will be worldwide
exclusive amateur.

So what's the problem with 7000-7050 being Morse Code only?

20/15/10 could all use some "CW Trimming" today.

Let's cut to the chase. It's about more room for 'phone and
less for Morse Code and digital modes. Some folks talk big
about "new directions" and "modernization" and "fresh ideas",
but what they really mean is more bandspace for SSB.

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY. No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.

Those that don't.....won't.

The trouble is that it will take an Extra to get down there.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news

Band allocation should be allocated on long term statistics
generated in
regards to the modes used... (past year or two)

A year or two is "long tern"? HAW, that's a good one!

(Does this guy know what a sunspot cycle is?)

As CW continues its'

"its".

drop, it needs less and less allocations...

Who says CW is dropping?

as
no-coders now enter CW will have to shrink to accommodate the new users and their modes...

You mean SSB, right? Because there's no Morse-Code-only subbands
on HF-MF in the USA.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"robert casey" wrote in message
.net...

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY. No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

Works for me. Such is the case already
with ARRL bandplans for USA already.
I'd have no problem with the bottom 25KHz
each HF band being CW only.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

robert casey wrote:

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY.
No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

well in the eyes of those that see CW under attack they do see still
see a need for a coded reservation, and they fear that they will lose
everything out side of it

Yet the reality of today is that except for two VHF bands,
50.0 MHz to 50.1 and 144.0 MHz to 144.1, there are no
other exclusive CW segments at all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

robert casey wrote:

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY.
No
digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

well in the eyes of those that see CW under attack they do see still
see a need for a coded reservation, and they fear that they will lose
everything out side of it


It seems true that many, if not most, CW fans fear that other modes will
"over-run" them if the ARRL's "plan" for regulation by bandwidth goes
forward in its present form. I have always stated truthfully here that I
would never support any proposal to ban or restrict the use of CW in any
way, shape, or form and that position still stands. I *also* firmly believe
that CW and other modes should NOT be "squeezed out of existence" or
"over-run by Winlink/PactorIII robots" as many fear will happen if the
"plan" adopted by the ARRL BoD in July were to become FCC regulation.

As a candidate for the ARRL Atlantic Division director's position, I have
gone on record publicly (on the QRP-L reflector and on qrz.com and now here
on r.r.a.p) that, had I been on the ARRL BoD in July, I would NOT have voted
for "the plan" because I believe that the fact that virtually NOBODY seems
to like it indicates to me that it's broken and needs to be fixed if it's to
go forward at all.

Bandplans and band usage are complicated issues where the ARRL or anyone
else is highly unlikely to be able to please everyone - the objective needs
to be to work with the different interest groups towards compromises that
allow us to get to something that at least a significant majority can accept
and say "I can live with that." If I become a member of the ARRL BoD I
would work with all of the interested parties in an effort to forge that
sort of result.

In addition to significantly improving the general level of technical
knowledge and skill of hams, growing our numbers (both licensees and ARRL
members), protecting our spectrum, and getting more people trained for and
involved in emergency communications, one of the MOST pressing problems we
face is to reverse the trend of "compartmentalizing" ourselves into
"factions" whose whole world revolves around one mode or one activity,
because the resulting "turf wars," suspicion/mistrust/paranoia, in-fighting,
and attacks on each other divide us in ways that both are bad for the ARS as
it's seen externally and bad for the ARS internally as we get along with (or
don't) each other.

We should ALL be "hams" (period) and work together cooperatively and
constructively going forward into the future on the truly important issues
facing ham radio and the ARRL. ALL hams should treat each other with
respect and courtesy, regardless of license class or operating preferences.
Experienced hams need to welcome new hams with the spirit of patience and
helpfulness that "Elmering" embodies, rather than treating them as some
inferior form of life.

As far as "dumbing down" goes - I don't buy it - as Ed Hare, W1RFI (someone
who I think most here respect), has recounted ... the "beginner's test
(novice)" in his day had a 3-1/2 page study guide, the general study guide
was 16 pages (I had mis-remembered and stated 12-14 pages in a couple of
presentations, but that was an honest mistake and doesn't really alter the
point). Today, the "Now You're Talking" - the study guide for the
"beginner's test (tech)" is on the order of 200 pages or slightly more and
covers MANY more topics than the study guides of Ed's test-taking days ever
covered.

The point is that things have NOT been "dumbed down" ... there is more to
study and learn than ever before - just to become a "beginner." I was
licensed long enough ago to have been a member of QCWA for some time, and I
am FIRMLY convinced that those who complain about "dumbing down" of the
testing are either being disingenuous, or more likely simply remember the
tests that they took many years ago as being MUCH harder than they actually
were. Besides, the test isn't a proof that you "know all there is to know,"
nor SHOULD it be.

I'd ask older hams with higher class licenses to think back to the mistakes
that they made when they first went on the air many years ago - and how the
more experienced hams of the time (generally) were patient, tolerant, and
helpful. Show the newcomers the way in polite, respectful, and constructive
ways, rather than slamming them and telling them they're no good!

If anyone (particularly from the Atlantic Division) wants to see information
on my background and qualifications and some issues material, it's available
on my personal website at http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c. Questions and comments
via direct e-mail are, of course, welcomed (again, particularly from ARRL
Atlantic Division members).

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...

"robert casey" wrote in message
.net...

I still like my suggestion......bottom 25 of ALL HF bands....CW ONLY.
No digital, etc. That way those that want can.


We could and should do this as a gentlemen's' agreement. No
need for FCC micromanagement here.

Works for me. Such is the case already
with ARRL bandplans for USA already.
I'd have no problem with the bottom 25KHz
each HF band being CW only.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Nor would I, per se, but since narrow modes like PSK31 take about the same
bandwidth, does it make sense to keep them out?

However, whichever way that question is answered, there is a problem is
that in some bands the bottom 25 kHz is for Extras only.

Would the Extra CW ops be willing to share their "exclusive playground" ???
Would they be willing to share with, e.g. PSK31???

(I should point out here again that I do NOT favor expansion of the phone
bands to allow SSB to "run roughshod" over CW and the digital modes any more
than I think that Winlink/PactorIII "robots" should run roughshod over CW,
PSK31, etc.)

See my other, longer post for more on this issue and others.

73,
Carl - wk3c
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c