AB5S WT 05-235 Comments to FCC
 

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.

I respectfully submit that we can relieve
the FCC of the burden and expense of administering
Amateur Radio Element One (Morse Code),
while preserving a skill which has both
a direct bearing on our nation's security
and a "global heritage" aspect.

We should maintain some level of incentive to
preserve and develop skill in Morse Code:

* Morse Code is still in use for covert
and intelligence operations throughout the world,
and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

* Morse code transmitters and receivers
are simple to make and operate,
needing only a handful of low-tech, inexpensive parts,
making them available even in less-developed
areas of the globe, where expensive and complicated
"hi-tech" systems are unavailable and, if present,
are subject to multiple failure modes.

* The only ready and sizable reservoir of trained
Morse operators is the Amateur Radio community.
If we remove any incentive to develop Morse skill,
this valuable asset will quickly cease to exist.

There is also a global historic and "Heritage of Humanity"
aspect to this issue. Morse Code has served as a
reliable means of communications for one and a half centuries.
It has been a primary tool in life-saving and part of
the great communication web that has knit us together,
first spanning neighborhoods, then continents, and
finally the world. As a tool in the evolution of
the global community, it ranks with the sailing ship,
steam ship, railroad and telephone. We preserve early
examples of these other means of connecting with
the larger world; Morse Code surely deserves at least
a modest effort at preservation, just as we preserve
these other "touch-stones" of our progress.
Without some form of incentive,
this important skill will be lost to us.

We can accomplish this while removing the burden
and expense from the FCC.
I respectfully suggest the following steps be adopted:

1. Drop the Element One (Morse Code) testing requirement
from Amateur Radio regulations. The FCC would
no longer be responsible for, or need to allocate
resources to, this task.

2. Reallocate the bottom 10 kiloHertz of each Amateur Radio
spectrum allocation to exclusive Morse Code use.
This is a small window, but is easily sufficient bandwidth
for skilled Morse operators.
It provides an "historic preserve," protected from
new and wider-bandwidth modes and will have
no impact on the development and use of new techniques.

3. Authorize the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) to
administer and issue, through the Volunteer Examiner
program, a license endorsement, attachable to any class
of Amateur Radio license, awarded for demonstration
of Morse skill at 5 WPM or better. Only those Amateur
operators with the endorsement could operate their stations
in the 10 kHz "historic preserves." The ARRL could
establish premiums for contesting and skill certifications
earned within the "preserves."
Continue to allow Morse Code use throughout
the remaining Amateur spectrum, subject to present rules
and/or future reallocations.

These modest steps will preserve this valuable and historic skill,
while removing the administrative burden from the FCC.
I respectfully submit them for your consideration.

Kind Regards,
David L. Stinson AB5S
Field Engineer
Wylie, Texas

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:

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

Yes, just as the U.S.S. Constitution needs "welfare," and
the U.S.S. Arizona memorial, and the local steam train
preservation societies, and WWII Warbird museums,
and The Grand Canyon National Park, etc.
All important historical things need some assets to
preserve them. It's too bad that some people let
their personal bigotries and unwillingness to
work for a goal get in the way of good sense...
D.S.

David Stinson wrote:
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

Yes, just as the U.S.S. Constitution needs "welfare," and
the U.S.S. Arizona memorial, and the local steam train
preservation societies, and WWII Warbird museums,
and The Grand Canyon National Park, etc.
All important historical things need some assets to
preserve them. It's too bad that some people let
their personal bigotries and unwillingness to
work for a goal get in the way of good sense...
D.S.

Well if you think Morse Code needs this aid to suvive then it isn't the
usefull mode that you describe

Morse Code either needs aid to survive or not If it needs such help to
survive it isn't the usefull mode you describe

Your comments are better than most, but they still have this slipshod
logic

Of course you come back with those that oppose you are lazy and
unpatriotic

It is amazing that the blindness that results from not examing your
beliefs

Walking was developed way before man ever thought of riding a horse,
camel, oxen, donkey, etc. Indeed, the automobile is only a very recent
development in mankinds' history, even predated by the bicycle...

Yet, few keep horses today as a reliable means of transportation...

Covert operations are mainly don't via the web...

But, nice bit of inaccurate obfuscation... CW will die with ancient
amateurs, however, there is always some faction which will use it, people
still ride oxen...

John

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:04:53 +0000, 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.

I respectfully submit that we can relieve
the FCC of the burden and expense of administering
Amateur Radio Element One (Morse Code),
while preserving a skill which has both
a direct bearing on our nation's security
and a "global heritage" aspect.

We should maintain some level of incentive to
preserve and develop skill in Morse Code:

* Morse Code is still in use for covert
and intelligence operations throughout the world,
and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

* Morse code transmitters and receivers
are simple to make and operate,
needing only a handful of low-tech, inexpensive parts,
making them available even in less-developed
areas of the globe, where expensive and complicated
"hi-tech" systems are unavailable and, if present,
are subject to multiple failure modes.

* The only ready and sizable reservoir of trained
Morse operators is the Amateur Radio community.
If we remove any incentive to develop Morse skill,
this valuable asset will quickly cease to exist.

There is also a global historic and "Heritage of Humanity"
aspect to this issue. Morse Code has served as a
reliable means of communications for one and a half centuries.
It has been a primary tool in life-saving and part of
the great communication web that has knit us together,
first spanning neighborhoods, then continents, and
finally the world. As a tool in the evolution of
the global community, it ranks with the sailing ship,
steam ship, railroad and telephone. We preserve early
examples of these other means of connecting with
the larger world; Morse Code surely deserves at least
a modest effort at preservation, just as we preserve
these other "touch-stones" of our progress.
Without some form of incentive,
this important skill will be lost to us.

We can accomplish this while removing the burden
and expense from the FCC.
I respectfully suggest the following steps be adopted:

1. Drop the Element One (Morse Code) testing requirement
from Amateur Radio regulations. The FCC would
no longer be responsible for, or need to allocate
resources to, this task.

2. Reallocate the bottom 10 kiloHertz of each Amateur Radio
spectrum allocation to exclusive Morse Code use.
This is a small window, but is easily sufficient bandwidth
for skilled Morse operators.
It provides an "historic preserve," protected from
new and wider-bandwidth modes and will have
no impact on the development and use of new techniques.

3. Authorize the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) to
administer and issue, through the Volunteer Examiner
program, a license endorsement, attachable to any class
of Amateur Radio license, awarded for demonstration
of Morse skill at 5 WPM or better. Only those Amateur
operators with the endorsement could operate their stations
in the 10 kHz "historic preserves." The ARRL could
establish premiums for contesting and skill certifications
earned within the "preserves."
Continue to allow Morse Code use throughout
the remaining Amateur spectrum, subject to present rules
and/or future reallocations.

These modest steps will preserve this valuable and historic skill,
while removing the administrative burden from the FCC.
I respectfully submit them for your consideration.

Kind Regards,
David L. Stinson AB5S
Field Engineer
Wylie, Texas

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

John Smith wrote:

Yet, few keep horses today as a reliable means of transportation...

That is a very U.S.- centric comment.
Horses are still very much a "reliable means of transportation"
over a great deal of the world, as are oxen.
Your comments indicate you place no value on the
large segment of humanity that lacks your wealth.
There is no "web" in ItchyScratchyStan, nor
money for $250,000 portable sat downlinks
in other such places; if they have one, it stays
broken most of the time from one of dozens of
failure modes. But one can usually get
hold of a few parts to piece together a CW rig,
*if* they have been wise enough to encourage
the preservation of the skill.

The United States is not the whole world,
and it's past time we remembered that.
D.S.

David:

Excellent argument for taking the USA to the "rest-of-the-world" and not
the opposite... if they want it, if not, let 'em ride the oxen...

John

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:31:04 +0000, David Stinson wrote:

John Smith wrote:

Yet, few keep horses today as a reliable means of transportation...

That is a very U.S.- centric comment.
Horses are still very much a "reliable means of transportation"
over a great deal of the world, as are oxen.
Your comments indicate you place no value on the
large segment of humanity that lacks your wealth.
There is no "web" in ItchyScratchyStan, nor
money for $250,000 portable sat downlinks
in other such places; if they have one, it stays
broken most of the time from one of dozens of
failure modes. But one can usually get
hold of a few parts to piece together a CW rig,
*if* they have been wise enough to encourage
the preservation of the skill.

The United States is not the whole world,
and it's past time we remembered that.
D.S.

John Smith wrote:

David:

Excellent argument for taking the USA to the "rest-of-the-world" and not
the opposite... if they want it, if not, let 'em ride the oxen...

It's not a matter of them "wanting it;"
that is also a U.S.- and Western-centric attitude.
People do not generally choose to ride oxen,
have high infant mortality and suffer from disease.
They do so because they do not have access to the wealth
of the West. You indicate that you think everyone can
just run right down to Wal-Mart and buy a new cell phone
anytime they like. Since they don't have the wealth to do this,
should we discard them as human beings?
These people need to communicate
just as you do, and there will be need for intelligence
operations in these communities. Morse is simple,
reliable and- despite the protests of indolent
and spoiled rich Westerners- easy to learn.
My suggestion will preserve only a small cadre' of
operators, but that will be enough.
The scorned few have always carried the fire
for the lazy many.

D.S.

David:

Then your argument must be centered on such as:

.. since parts of the world don't have out hospitals, we should abandon
them for simpler medical practices.

.. americans need more rickshaws.

.. we are going digital tv, we should abandon this, as it will be years or
decades before some of the world updates.

.... get real ... no one should design the world on the least of available
technologies. Instead, at every turn of the road, the bar needs
raised--challenging those lagging to catch up...

John


On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:44:44 +0000, David Stinson wrote:

John Smith wrote:

David:

Excellent argument for taking the USA to the "rest-of-the-world" and not
the opposite... if they want it, if not, let 'em ride the oxen...

It's not a matter of them "wanting it;"
that is also a U.S.- and Western-centric attitude.
People do not generally choose to ride oxen,
have high infant mortality and suffer from disease.
They do so because they do not have access to the wealth
of the West. You indicate that you think everyone can
just run right down to Wal-Mart and buy a new cell phone
anytime they like. Since they don't have the wealth to do this,
should we discard them as human beings?
These people need to communicate
just as you do, and there will be need for intelligence
operations in these communities. Morse is simple,
reliable and- despite the protests of indolent
and spoiled rich Westerners- easy to learn.
My suggestion will preserve only a small cadre' of
operators, but that will be enough.
The scorned few have always carried the fire
for the lazy many.

D.S.

David Stinson wrote:
John Smith wrote:

Yet, few keep horses today as a reliable means of transportation...

That is a very U.S.- centric comment.
Horses are still very much a "reliable means of transportation"
over a great deal of the world, as are oxen.
Your comments indicate you place no value on the
large segment of humanity that lacks your wealth.
There is no "web" in ItchyScratchyStan, nor
money for $250,000 portable sat downlinks

Showing your prejudges again

but gee I could get a portable self alining up link downlink for a
couple of garnd these days,and since it was made in China I suspect
that in Uzbekistan they could still get get for under 5 g

in other such places; if they have one, it stays
broken most of the time from one of dozens of
failure modes. But one can usually get
hold of a few parts to piece together a CW rig,
*if* they have been wise enough to encourage
the preservation of the skill.

The United States is not the whole world,
and it's past time we remembered that.
D.S.

David Stinson wrote:
John Smith wrote:

David:

Excellent argument for taking the USA to the "rest-of-the-world" and not
the opposite... if they want it, if not, let 'em ride the oxen...

It's not a matter of them "wanting it;"
that is also a U.S.- and Western-centric attitude.
People do not generally choose to ride oxen,
have high infant mortality and suffer from disease.
They do so because they do not have access to the wealth
of the West. You indicate that you think everyone can
just run right down to Wal-Mart and buy a new cell phone
anytime they like. Since they don't have the wealth to do this,
should we discard them as human beings?
These people need to communicate

And the US retianing morse will help them How?

just as you do, and there will be need for intelligence
operations in these communities. Morse is simple,
reliable and- despite the protests of indolent

and findable to RDF jamable

and spoiled rich Westerners- easy to learn.
My suggestion will preserve only a small cadre' of
operators, but that will be enough.
The scorned few have always carried the fire
for the lazy many.

feel free to try and prsrve the mode of your choice I doubt it will die
out. AM hasn't, I doubt Morse Coded CW will either, but at least the
rest of us will not have to be emabrashed by the horse and buggy
aproach

D.S.

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

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

Dan/W4NTI

"David Stinson" wrote in message
...
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.

I respectfully submit that we can relieve
the FCC of the burden and expense of administering
Amateur Radio Element One (Morse Code),
while preserving a skill which has both
a direct bearing on our nation's security
and a "global heritage" aspect.

We should maintain some level of incentive to
preserve and develop skill in Morse Code:

* Morse Code is still in use for covert
and intelligence operations throughout the world,
and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

* Morse code transmitters and receivers
are simple to make and operate,
needing only a handful of low-tech, inexpensive parts,
making them available even in less-developed
areas of the globe, where expensive and complicated
"hi-tech" systems are unavailable and, if present,
are subject to multiple failure modes.

* The only ready and sizable reservoir of trained
Morse operators is the Amateur Radio community.
If we remove any incentive to develop Morse skill,
this valuable asset will quickly cease to exist.

There is also a global historic and "Heritage of Humanity"
aspect to this issue. Morse Code has served as a
reliable means of communications for one and a half centuries.
It has been a primary tool in life-saving and part of
the great communication web that has knit us together,
first spanning neighborhoods, then continents, and
finally the world. As a tool in the evolution of
the global community, it ranks with the sailing ship,
steam ship, railroad and telephone. We preserve early
examples of these other means of connecting with
the larger world; Morse Code surely deserves at least
a modest effort at preservation, just as we preserve
these other "touch-stones" of our progress.
Without some form of incentive,
this important skill will be lost to us.

We can accomplish this while removing the burden
and expense from the FCC.
I respectfully suggest the following steps be adopted:

1. Drop the Element One (Morse Code) testing requirement
from Amateur Radio regulations. The FCC would
no longer be responsible for, or need to allocate
resources to, this task.

2. Reallocate the bottom 10 kiloHertz of each Amateur Radio
spectrum allocation to exclusive Morse Code use.
This is a small window, but is easily sufficient bandwidth
for skilled Morse operators.
It provides an "historic preserve," protected from
new and wider-bandwidth modes and will have
no impact on the development and use of new techniques.

3. Authorize the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) to
administer and issue, through the Volunteer Examiner
program, a license endorsement, attachable to any class
of Amateur Radio license, awarded for demonstration
of Morse skill at 5 WPM or better. Only those Amateur
operators with the endorsement could operate their stations
in the 10 kHz "historic preserves." The ARRL could
establish premiums for contesting and skill certifications
earned within the "preserves."
Continue to allow Morse Code use throughout
the remaining Amateur spectrum, subject to present rules
and/or future reallocations.

These modest steps will preserve this valuable and historic skill,
while removing the administrative burden from the FCC.
I respectfully submit them for your consideration.

Kind Regards,
David L. Stinson AB5S
Field Engineer
Wylie, Texas

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
...

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

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

Why so little? Should be at least this much:

Morse Code Only Subbands:

1800-1830
3500-3575
7000-7050
10100-10115
14000-14050
18068-18083
21000-21075
24890-24905
28000-28100

Why not?

73 de Jim, N2EY

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 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
...

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

From: on Aug 20, 5:42 am

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"

That may have been 33 years ago while fighting the
commies around the Fulda Gap in Yurp.

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.

Define "new, young, modern." Did you mean the kind of
electronics typified by all-vacuum-tube, state-of-the-
art, designed by yourself in 1990" new, yound, and
modern?

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

What makes you think that a MINORITY has any "right" to
an exclusive radio playground?

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.

Bad "analysis." The "40m issue" has been going on since
1979...for 26 years. The RESOLUTION of it came about in
2003 at WRC-03. 40 meters will be resolved as to who gets
what in 2009...as outlined in the resolutions made in 2003.
That was adequately explained in the WRC-03 REPORT as
written by the U.S. delegation leader and appearing a year
ago on the FCC International Bureau pages.

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

What makes you think that a MINORITY has any "right" to
an exclusive radio playground?

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.

...and some folks talk big about "exclusivity for Them,"
"old directions" and "archaic conservatism."

Cutting to the chase, the PCTA insist on EXCLUSIVITY for
their "nobility" as if they were Gods of Radio. They
consider themselves some kind of Elite, a rationalization
for being able to evolve, to cope, to interact with the
rest of the "amateur community."

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.

Irrelevant. WT Docket 05-235 is NOT about license classes
or the rank/status/privileges of the "ruling class." :-)

"John Smith" wrote in message

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!

Do you have a "5-Year Plan" for the Party, Commissar?

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

Does Commisar Miccolis realize that RADIO itself is only 109
years old? Almost "10" in "Sun Years."

Of course, to a 14-year-old, waiting 11 years until 25 seems
like a virtual eternity. It's a mental state, very subjective.

As CW continues its'

"its".

Sister Nun of the Above has a bottomless drawer of rulers.
[she should empty out her drawers...ugh!]

drop, it needs less and less allocations...

Who says CW is dropping?

Tsk, tsk. As in the old saying, "if all you have is a hammer,
everything looks like a nail."

Coders who play in their almost-exclusive radio playground
just can't seem to keep count or recognize the territory.

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.

Feeling disenchanted, Jimmie? Contact KH2D and seek to open
up "No SSB International." Technically well-done website of
the past, but stuck in its little Guamian territory in the
middle of the Pacific, totally surrounded by water (it was
all wet in thinking).

Coders ALREADY have TOTAL EXCLUSIVITY for OOK CW in 6m, 2m
bands. They can move on up to those bands and "work" ALL
the "CW" they can, undisturbed by the unwashed masses doing
(hack, ptui) Voice or Data. ALL THEIRS! Think of the
glorious possibilities to "advance the state of the art" of
morse code! [first used in 1844, 161 years ago]

You don't like that idea? Awwwww. It is JUST LIKE CODERS
DID for the no-coders and anti-morse heathen many years ago.
BANISH them to "the world above 30 MHz" in a perfect example
of elitism, gross class bigotry. But, you Coders consider
yourself "above" the mundane, better than best, the "extra"
of the radio world, superior to all others through beeping.

Hang onto your "extra" license obtained through morsemanship,
Jimmie. It may be all you'll have in the future to show
your "greatness" in AMATEUR radio.

key not

I don't think that will work any longer. Just listen to the low end of 40
meters. Lots of digital types moving down the band. They probably can't
copy cw, or not much, and giving them the benefit of the doubt "may not"
know they are interfering.

Gentleman's agreement wont work.

Dan/W4NTI

"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.

"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


That's right.

Dan/W4NTI

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"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
Good luck to you Carl.

One parting shot ..... now a days the new comers are not like we used to
be. The new hams today are educated by using Cobra's and kickers, and all
the assorted crap that goes along with that mindset.

Dan/W4NTI

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

"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


Very true Bill. The gentlemans agreements worked....then. Not anymore.
The gentlemen have died off, and the CBers have replaced them. Think about
it.

Dan/W4NTI

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"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?


Why should we allow PSK31 in the CW segement at all? Isn't the REST of the
band (pick your band) enough?


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

So what? Change it.

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

I've been an Extra for 20 years. A ham for 44. I have no problem with
dropping the silly "Extra exclusive CW subbands". I answered the PSK issue
earlier.

(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

Dan/W4NTI

wrote in message
oups.com...
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"

No I didn't....I don't consider 5 CW stations in 100 KC over use of a
segement. Or should I say "Use of a segement". Nets are there for sure,
but not for long. Then the band is dead again.

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?

Because we don't use it now. 25 on the bottom of all bands is plenty IF it
is CW exclusive to ALL classes.


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?

See above

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.


No it won't. Drop the Extra only and be done with that Dinosaur.
Dan/W4NTI

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

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

I no longer care to waste my time with you Lennie. You are Anti-Amateur
Radio. You have no reason to be in this group. Other than to sew hate and
discontent.

You don't even have a license or any experience in Amateur Radio at all.
Thus your comments and input are of no interest to me. Nor should they be
to any other person here.

In other words I no longer give a rip what you say or think.

Have a nice life.

Dan/W4NTI

Lennie's idiotic comments deleted
plonk

wrote in message
oups.com...

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

Why so little? Should be at least this much:

Morse Code Only Subbands:

1800-1830
3500-3575
7000-7050
10100-10115
14000-14050
18068-18083
21000-21075
24890-24905
28000-28100

Why not?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Don't need that much.

Dan/W4NTI