wrote:
From: on Dec 9, 6:28 pm

wrote:
wrote:

Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"

Brian,

You have written that phrase as a direct quote, and attributed it to
me.

Where have I written that I 'served in other ways'?

So you haven't "served in other ways?"

September 24, 2004;

Nope. I did not write that I "served in other ways" on that date.

January 13, February 10, May 25 2005.

Nope, nope, and nope again. I did not write that I
"served in other ways" on any of those dates either.

Len, if you had actually *read* what I wrote on those
days, you'd know that.

What I have written is a question for you and others.

Here it is again:

Is service in the military the only way a citizen can
serve our country? Or are there other ways?

KØHB wrote:

Being a CW operator, quite frankly I'm happy about the flexibility that gives
me. But it's a mystery to me why all modes aren't treated in this generous
manner, and why other CW operators seem so firmly opposed to the
Canadian/European "market forces" model of frequency sharing.

Has to do with the compatibility of modes, Hans. Not all modes share
bandspace equally well. Not all operators follow the bandplans, either.

From what I read, the folks in Region 1 are already beginning to
notice problems being caused by the "market forces" (loudest
signal wins) model of frequency "sharing". A lot of Region 1
hams aren't so happy with how it's working out in real life.

---

One reason for the separation of 'phone and Morse/digital is to
maximize the
utilization of the available bandwidth.

Say you have a band like 80/75 meters. 500 kHz of bandspace.

If we allow 2.5 kHz for each SSB QSO and 250 Hz for each CW/digital
QSO, (average)
it's clear that the band could theoretically support 200 simultaneous
SSB QSOs or
2000 simultaneous CW/digital QSOs. Allowing all modes everywhere
rewards
the modes that use the most bandwidth at the expense of those that use
the least.

---

Perhaps the biggest fear many have is the "one way" nature of a lot of
FCC rules changes. Suppose we do go to "all bands everywhere/voluntary
bandplans"
and the result is a messy nightmare of QRM. Will FCC reimpose the old
rules?
Very doubtful, given the history of the past 20-30 years.

73 de Jim, N2EY

K4YZ wrote:

WHOA! There's the pot calling the kettle black!

Whoa! Steve writes "raped an old friend" and thinks it's OK.

wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:

Being a CW operator, quite frankly I'm happy about the flexibility that gives
me. But it's a mystery to me why all modes aren't treated in this generous
manner, and why other CW operators seem so firmly opposed to the
Canadian/European "market forces" model of frequency sharing.

Has to do with the compatibility of modes, Hans. Not all mode
share bandspace equally well.

That's a non-sequiter, Jim.

That's why there are bandplans. IARU has been in the bandplanning business
mostly everywhere except in the USA for about 75 years. As new modes gain favor
(market dynamics change) they reach agreement in their bandplans to accomodate
the proportions of users of the various modes.

Not all operators follow the bandplans, either.

Really? Well then I guess Riley will just have to invoke the "good amateur
practice" rule..... oh, never mind, he's already doing that. Not good enough
for you..... OK, add a new sentence to §97.101(a) so it reads as follows:

(a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur
station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and
good amateur practice. Nonconformance with IARU bandplan
guidance is specifically considered a violation of this paragraph.



From what I read, the folks in Region 1 are already beginning to
notice problems being caused by the "market forces" (loudest
signal wins) model of frequency "sharing". A lot of Region 1
hams aren't so happy with how it's working out in real life.

"Already"? After 75 years?

How many is "a lot"? 50? 50,000?

---

One reason for the separation of 'phone and Morse/digital is to maximize the
utilization of the available bandwidth.

Say you have a band like 80/75 meters. 500 kHz of bandspace.

If we allow 2.5 kHz for each SSB QSO and 250 Hz for each
CW/digital QSO, (average) it's clear that the band could theoretically
support 200 simultaneous SSB QSOs or 2000 simultaneous CW/digital
QSOs.

Be careful what you wish for. Using that logic, it follows that fair frequency
management techniques would allow for an equal number of CW and Phone contacts
since the number of regular users is about equal, and CW would lose some
man-sized chunks of spectrum. The theoretical "even number" division of this
500kHz band would work out to 90 CW (250 Hz) and 90 SSB (2500 Hz) QSO's.

The CW allocation would be 3500-3522.5kHz, and SSB would have the remainder of
the band. Sorry, but I can't live with that! Neither should we live with the
current plan where CW has a theoretical 2000-QSO band, and SSB is limited to a
theoretical limit of just 100 QSO's on that same band. If the number of CW
users is roughly equal to the number of SSB users, why does CW now enjoy a 20-1
advantage in effective frequency space (measured in simultaneous QSO's)?

73, de Hans, K0HB

From: on Dec 10, 1:14 pm

wrote:
From: on Dec 9, 6:28 pm
wrote:
wrote:


Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"

Brian,

You have written that phrase as a direct quote, and attributed it to
me.

Where have I written that I 'served in other ways'?

So you haven't "served in other ways?"

September 24, 2004; January 13, February 10, May 25 2005. shrug

Len, thanks for serving up the specific dates of his attempts to claim
some kind of honors, but he's just not worth my time.

Agreed. Jimmie MUST have quotes that are EXACT and WORD-FOR-
WORD. Amazing. He can't understand that other people read
the entirety of his boasting claims of doing more than others
and doing it oh-so-much-better.

At the very same time he tries to dump on everyone who
disagrees with HIM, be they veterans or not. "Patriotism?"
Hardly.


All my postings to newsgroups are in Google. Please
provide a link to the posting(s) where I wrote what you
claim I wrote.

At's OK. I'll take your word for it that not only haven't you served,
but that you haven't "served in other ways."

Jimmie "serves" ceasar salads at the O-club on Satiddy nights.
[hail ceasar...]

He reminds me of Madeliene Al(most)bright saying that America no longer
needs the "Marine Culture." Woefully uninformed. She's not worthy to
preside over a barrel-burning detail for our deployed troops.

Neither is Jimmie.

Maddie WAS Secretary of State at one time, though. Wonder if
Jimmie could wear a nice dress and heels as Condi's replacement?


Jimmie loves to re-argue, re-argue, re-argue old, old postings'
content, perhaps hoping to THIS TIME being able to win one...:-)

Hmmmm? OK, if he wants to reargue what he says he didn't say...

Brian, any quote attributed to him MUST be WORD-FOR-WORD or
"he never said any such thing."

He changes his boundary conditions to put himself in the "right"
anywhichwayhecan.


Jimmie be the "silent majority" type of wannabe...or maybe a
Better-Than? He is "superior" and without fault in whatever he
does. Just ask him and he will confirm that.

It's funny. A few years ago, I was surrounded by people serving in the
military, and it almost appeared that everyone did. Most of us had
been to the desert, to Honduras, to Korea, etc, etc, etc.

Now that I'm out here with the "civils," its eye-opening and shocking.

I understand. Been there, done that. Of course, I did it far
further back than most, but I never forgot it.

A great problem with these "civils" is that, not being anywhere
close to danger themselves, everything military is like a movie
or TV show. All the actors come alive after the show is over
and go on to play other parts in other shows later. Ain't so
in the military. Once dead, completely dead. No SAG or SEG
rules about resurrection for them. The military's environment
is not a comfortable living room or an air conditioned theater.

Jimmie said "I was 'safe' in Tokyo." The Russkies "couldn't
reach us with aircraft" or some dumb thing like that. Had he
seen some rather elaborate plans for shelters and op-orders on
what to do when the crap entered the cyclone, he would have
probably complained about excess spending or equivalent. In the
1950s the Russkies DID have various delivery systems for
special weapons. Jimmie doesn't want to believe that. Being
safe in his crib in the yew-knighted-states, nobody was going to
nuke HIM! :-) Ergo, nobody was going to nuke anyone. He went
out of his way trying to barf on those of us who were OUT THERE
one helluvalot closer to danger than HE ever was.

Be that as it may, most of the vets I've talked to who served
off-shore were both cognizant of danger close-at-hand but also
optimistic as to their survival. The vast majority of us
survived and came back to the "civils," uncivil though some of
them were.

My outfit did communications. We did it well, got two
Presidential Unit Citations for it while I was there. We did
communications of the most direct means possible then, didn't
play at it as some amateur did with the "NTS" and their
"official radiograms." At the same time we had to keep up with
ordinary soldiering skills, summed up by the primary mission
phrase "...to close with, and destroy, the enemy."

I like to think that the guys in my outfit could, if needs be,
carry out their primary mission as soldiers. None of us
wanted any "test" of whether or not we were. I thank God
there wasn't any. Braggarts and hero-wannabes say the opposite,
that they could/did "fight" anyone (with the jaw-bone of an
ass...their own). See hero of seven hostile actions, Dudly
the Imposter.


Give Jimmie some slack(s). He might be organizing a charity
group in memory of fallen hippie linemen who tye-dyed on active
duty in the 60s?

If Jim want's to make some legitimate claim to how he served, then he
can make it.

Hmphhh...the O-clubs still need waiters. Burger King still
needs servers.

If not then he can go to his grave regretting how he
misspent his youth or how he "served in other ways" that are the
equivalent of military service in his mind. Sad.

He knows no better. He will never allow himself to be with
fault. Ergo, he is always right...others are always "wrong"
if they disagree with him.

Lately, Jimmie has become an "expert" on regional real estate
and urban zoning. He "knows exactly" all about every situation
involving those two areas. He made some weird analogies to
opinions I've expressed, analogies that have NO relationship
whatsoever. That was all geared to make me look "bad,"
essential to make him "look good" and be without fault. It
didn't work, was incorrect...but Jimmie thinks it did and
Jimmie is the only one that counts. shrug

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

wrote


Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no
Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of
us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code.


I haven't seen anyone, licensed or not, propose a change in the
regulations that would affect my use of Morse code.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB


I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans forHF
instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal
throughout the entire band. That could impact your use of Morse during
the
larger voice contests.

Couldn't possibly. CW always gets through.

With the number of hams in this country that could
be a mess.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the
number of people holding a license.
________________________________________________
End Quote



No that was never one of the original reasons to test for Morse.

become better infromed as to history

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

wrote


Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no
Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of
us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code.


I haven't seen anyone, licensed or not, propose a change in the
regulations that would affect my use of Morse code.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB


I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans for
HF
instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal
throughout the entire band. That could impact your use of Morse during
the
larger voice contests.

Couldn't possibly. CW always gets through.

With the number of hams in this country that could
be a mess.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the
number of people holding a license.
________________________________________________
End Quote



No that was never one of the original reasons to test for Morse.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Yes, it was. See Google.

__________________________________________________ _
End Quote


Google is not necessarily a reliable historical source, especially for
things that far in the past.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
cut

With the number of hams in this country that could
be a mess.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the
number of people holding a license.
________________________________________________
End Quote



No that was never one of the original reasons to test for Morse.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Yes, it was. See Google.

__________________________________________________ _
End Quote


Google is not necessarily a reliable historical source, especially for
things that far in the past.

Google may well have the answers here but they exist none the less and
can be found by anyone that is not so blind as not be willing to risk
there preconceived notions

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

KØHB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
KØHB wrote:

Being a CW operator, quite frankly I'm happy about the flexibility that gives
me. But it's a mystery to me why all modes aren't treated in this generous
manner, and why other CW operators seem so firmly opposed to the
Canadian/European "market forces" model of frequency sharing.

Has to do with the compatibility of modes, Hans. Not all mode
share bandspace equally well.

That's a non-sequiter, Jim.

I don't think so.

That's why there are bandplans. IARU has been in the bandplanning business
mostly everywhere except in the USA for about 75 years. As new modes gain favor
(market dynamics change) they reach agreement in their bandplans to accomodate
the proportions of users of the various modes.

Supposedly, anyway. One problem with IARU bandplans is that the
ham bands in other countries aren't all the same as they are here.

Not all operators follow the bandplans, either.

Really? Well then I guess Riley will just have to invoke the "good amateur
practice" rule..... oh, never mind, he's already doing that. Not good enough
for you..... OK, add a new sentence to §97.101(a) so it reads as follows:

(a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur
station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and
good amateur practice. Nonconformance with IARU bandplan
guidance is specifically considered a violation of this paragraph.

What that does is to turn what are now voluntary bandplans into the
rule of law.

From what I read, the folks in Region 1 are already beginning to
notice problems being caused by the "market forces" (loudest
signal wins) model of frequency "sharing". A lot of Region 1
hams aren't so happy with how it's working out in real life.

"Already"? After 75 years?

The Region 1 folks haven't always had the free-for-all rules they
mostly have now. Neither has Canada.

---

One reason for the separation of 'phone and Morse/digital is to maximize the
utilization of the available bandwidth.

Say you have a band like 80/75 meters. 500 kHz of bandspace.

If we allow 2.5 kHz for each SSB QSO and 250 Hz for each
CW/digital QSO, (average) it's clear that the band could theoretically
support 200 simultaneous SSB QSOs or 2000 simultaneous CW/digital
QSOs.

Be careful what you wish for. Using that logic, it follows that fair frequency
management techniques would allow for an equal number of CW and Phone contacts
since the number of regular users is about equal, and CW would lose some
man-sized chunks of spectrum.

If you look at it that way, maybe.

OTOH, that approach rewards those who use the most spectrum, rather
than those who
use the spectrum the most efficiently.

The theoretical "even number" division of this
500kHz band would work out to 90 CW (250 Hz) and 90 SSB (2500 Hz) QSO's.

Which means only 180 QSOs in the entire 500 kHz. And where do the
digital folks
go?

The CW allocation would be 3500-3522.5kHz, and SSB would have the remainder of
the band. Sorry, but I can't live with that!

Why not? You're the one pushing "market forces", Hans. What will you do
when the
bandplan says that's what CW gets?

Neither should we live with the
current plan where CW has a theoretical 2000-QSO band, and SSB is limitedto a
theoretical limit of just 100 QSO's on that same band.

Agreed! But simply tossing out the regulations isn't the answer.

If the number of CW
users is roughly equal to the number of SSB users, why does CW now enjoy a 20-1
advantage in effective frequency space (measured in simultaneous QSO's)?

Old rules, old ideas. I see no mention of digital.

The future is probably going to be very different. For one thing, we
will soon have many
hams on HF who don't know any Morse Code at all. We also have, already,
a growing number using an increasing variety of "digital" modes which
cannot be decoded without
special equipment (usually a computer) and where the operator looks at
a visual display rather than listening to the band. There are also
"semi-automatic" and "robot" digital
stations with no operator at all.

How does a Morse Code station, or an SSB station, tell a digital
station that the digital
station is causing interference - or even identify the callsign of the
digital station? That's
just one problem.

The widening variety of modes and operating methods means we need more
rules, not less (unfortunately). I suggest that the bands be carved up
into subbands-by-mode - CW only, narrow digital, wide/auto digital,
analog voice. The ARRL "subbands by bandwidth" proposal tries to
address the problem but it's got too many flaws.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Morse Code test speeds for an amateur license were
increased from 10 wpm to 13 wpm, circa 1936, at the
request of the ARRL president in a letter to the FCC.
See Page 82 of "Fifty Years of ARRL" -- that's no
deep dark secret.

But it's not the whole story.

The request was for an increase from 10 wpm to
12-1/2 wpm. The FCC "rounded up" to 13 wpm
on their own.

The same letter requested more comprehensive
WRITTEN exams,
updated to the current technology then used by hams.
This was also granted by the FCC. There were only
three classes of license at the time, and all required
the same code speed.

The code speed increase is often remembered. The
written test improvement is rarely if ever
remembered.

This whole situation is frequently "spin doctored"
by those who say the code test speed was
raised to limit the number of amateurs.

For example, it was claimed by WA6VSE (now WK3C)
back in 1999 that:

"The ARRL wanted faster code tests PURELY as a
means of slowing growth in the amateur ranks, contending
that (with about 30,000 hams at the time) "the bands are
approaching saturation" ... clearly a ridiculous claim."

The saturation thing was a very realistic claim. And there
were 46,000 US hams, not 30,000.

Here's "the rest of the story":

The ham bands of the time consisted of 160, 80, 40, 20, 10,
5, 2-1/2 and 1-1/4 meters. Nothing else.

The bands below (shorter in wavelength) than 20 meters
were sparsely populated by hams, due to the difficulty of
getting simple 1930s equipment to work at all on
such frequencies, and the limited results that could be expected.

160 was popular with 'phone men, but a decent antenna
for that band was/is enormous and BCI could be a real devil.

10 was not as popular because of its varying propagation and
equipment difficulties.

So most hams were on 80, 40, and 20, using simple, Depression
era stations. A "pair of tens and a three tube blooper" (push pull
self-controlled oscillator transmitter and regenerative receiver)
was typical, and many hams did not even have that. Home-made
stations were common - a station that had no home-brew was
very rare.

Yes, crystal controlled, multistage transmitters and single signal
superhet receivers were in use, but only by a few wealthy hams.
There were even some amateurs using SSB voice, but the cost and
complexity of such a station kept their numbers to a handful. Those
hams who did use voice were almost all using double-sideband-
with-carrier AM, and took up 6 to 10 kc of the band each.

In practice, ham QSOs of the day rarely had both stations on the same
frequency. Many of the simple transmitters of the 1930s were not
designed for rapid QSY, and straying outside the band was too easy.
Crystal controlled operation was even less flexible.

So most QSOs used up two frequencies - what would be called "split"
operation today. This meant that the QRM was twice as bad as if
everyone had "zero beat" QSOs.

In order to make contacts under such conditions, it was necessary to
tune through the band pretty quickly, to hear any replies to a CQ.
This meant receivers with fast tuning rates and not too much
selectivity.

The result was that each QSO required much more room than today.

The total available spectrum on 80, 40, and 20 added up to only
1200 kilocycles. (We're talking about the '30s, so I use the historic
term).
Put 4600 hams (10% of the total licensees) on the air at once and each
would less than 250 cycles. The bands WERE approaching saturation.

Saturation was not the only problem. There were about 19,000 USA
licensed hams in 1929. Their number had grown slowly but steadily
from the post WW1 reactivation ten years earlier.

In 1929 there came new regs that dramatically cut the width of the
bands (40 was once 7-8 Mc., 20 was 14-16 Mc.) and required much
cleaner signals from ham stations. Yet over the next few years, in the
depths of the Great Depression, the number of US ham licenses almost
tripled, to 46,000. In addition, many newcomers left the hobby quickly

- at one point in the early '30s, turnover approached 40% per year.
That
meant most hams were newcomers, often technically and operationally
lacking in skills and knowledge. One less-than-knowledgeable ham
with a faulty transmitter could make a real mess on the band. Worse,
a ham who strayed out of the band could mess up nonamateur radio
services in a big way.

The very existence of amateur radio in the 1930s wasn't very secure.
Even after hams were allowed back on the air after WW1, there were
several efforts to kill off or severely restrict amateur radio all
through
the 1920s. Amateur radio did not achieve international treaty status
until 1927, and the price for that status was the extreme loss of
bandspace on 40 and 20 meters listed above. The 1927 treaty also
required clean signals, Morse Code testing and written testing of
all radio amateurs.

Those in the 1930s who knew the history understood that if amateurs
strayed
out of their bands too much, the same forces that had tried to kill
off amateur radio in the '20s might well succeed in the 1930s.

The idea was to slow the rapid turnover *and* insure that new hams were
more
operationally skilled and technically knowledgeable, by requiring a
little more code speed and a lot more technical knowledge.

Today we have far more bandwidth, far more sophisticated equipment,
and far more options in choice of band and mode.

Before criticizing the actions of almost 70 years ago, one should first

get a clear picture of the conditions of the time. Critics of the ARRL

action are invited to build an operating amateur station, using only
parts
and techniques available in the early '30s - and do it on a
Depression-era budget, as well. Then try to use said station on the ham

bands, and see what conclusions are drawn.

The point of all this is that ham radio was VERY different in the '30s,
and solutions that seem simple and obvious today were not practical
for most hams back then. What is really amazing is that so many hams
succeeded, using such simple equipment.

A big part of the story was the use of CW, and the operating skills of
the
hams of the day. But in some circles it is electropolitically
incorrect
to talk about operating skills in a positive manner. Or to suggest
that
perhaps the Ancient Ones knew something about what they were doing.

73 de Jim, N2EY