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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:09:49 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:

Just why would there need to be a test in order to use this specturm
set aside

One can either USE Morse Code or not

But still the plea that Morse Code needs welfare in order to endure

David Stinson wrote:
Comments submitted to the FCC,
advocating ARRL administration of
Morse license endorsment:
-------------------

18 Aug. 2005
WT Docket 05-235,
Amateur Radio Morse Code Testing Requirement.

cuting to save BW

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

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

all in all a decent defense of the indefensable

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:09:49 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:

Just why would there need to be a test in order to use this specturm
set aside

One can either USE Morse Code or not

But still the plea that Morse Code needs welfare in order to endure

David Stinson wrote:
Comments submitted to the FCC,
advocating ARRL administration of
Morse license endorsment:
-------------------

18 Aug. 2005
WT Docket 05-235,
Amateur Radio Morse Code Testing Requirement.

cuting to save BW

AOF:

One thing for sure, this group sure has a lot which do not value
having anyone respecting their credibility... after a sufficient length
of time it becomes obvious, the vast amount dis-information which flows
off their keyboards... I think it is deeper than just them stating
falsehoods they know to be untrue, it really is a depiction of their
ignorance...

John

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:48:11 -0700, 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

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

all in all a decent defense of the indefensable

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:09:49 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:

Just why would there need to be a test in order to use this specturm
set aside

One can either USE Morse Code or not

But still the plea that Morse Code needs welfare in order to endure

David Stinson wrote:
Comments submitted to the FCC,
advocating ARRL administration of
Morse license endorsment:
-------------------

18 Aug. 2005
WT Docket 05-235,
Amateur Radio Morse Code Testing Requirement.

cuting to save BW

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...

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.

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

Steve, K4YZ

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?


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


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

it would to you

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


Steve, KY4Z

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

I think it is an excellent solution (except for the 10KHZ only part) to the
situation.

Knowing the FCC, if it takes it off their hands they will jump on it. If
they have time to write up the NPRM that is.

Dan/W4NTI

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

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

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

all in all a decent defense of the indefensable

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:09:49 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:

Just why would there need to be a test in order to use this specturm
set aside

One can either USE Morse Code or not

But still the plea that Morse Code needs welfare in order to endure

David Stinson wrote:
Comments submitted to the FCC,
advocating ARRL administration of
Morse license endorsment:
-------------------

18 Aug. 2005
WT Docket 05-235,
Amateur Radio Morse Code Testing Requirement.

cuting to save BW

I actually agree with you on this one. 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.
Lots of open space from 3.6 to 3.750 if you want to be open minded on this
subject.

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

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

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.

Dan/W4NTI

"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)

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:09:49 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:

Just why would there need to be a test in order to use this specturm
set aside

One can either USE Morse Code or not

But still the plea that Morse Code needs welfare in order to endure

David Stinson wrote:
Comments submitted to the FCC,
advocating ARRL administration of
Morse license endorsment:
-------------------

18 Aug. 2005
WT Docket 05-235,
Amateur Radio Morse Code Testing Requirement.

cuting to save BW

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