| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
August 20th 05, 04:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#2
August 20th 05, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Seeking comments from Icom PCR1000 Users | Scanner | |||
| Seeking Comments from Icom PCR1000 Users | Shortwave | |||
| Citizens make inappropriate comments? | Policy | |||
| NASWA Draft BPL Comments | Shortwave | |||
| BPL interference - reply comments - YOUR ACTION REQUIRED | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
