RadioBanter - View Single Post - CW-forever Guys are gonna go balistic!

[email protected]

wrote:
wrote:
KØHB wrote:
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote
73 de Alun, N3KIP
(20wpm Extra, 100% phone op)

Alun,

With all due respect, your signature line kind of reveals your agenda.. We
aren't talking about Extra's who don't use CW/rtty/data. The folks we're
talking about here are Generals, the most populous HF license class in the US.
On 75m they have just had their CW/rtty/data spectrum reduced by 2/3rds. That's
outrageous!

73, de Hans, K0HB

Here, I'll have a go.

When the new changes go into effect:

Generals gain 50 kHz of 'phone but lose 150 kHz of cw/rtty (1:3 ratio
of gained/lost bandspace)
Advanceds gain 75 kHz of 'phone but lose 100 kHz of cw/rtty (3:4 ratio)
Extras gain 150 kHz of 'phone but lose 150 kHz of cw/rtty (1:1)
Novices and codetested Techs gain 75 kHz in one part of the band but
lose 75 kHz elsewhere (3:2)

Do you see the disparity, particularly for Generals? Why should it
exist? What did Generals do to merit losing so much spectrum?

Failed to upgrade is the trite answer.

Maybe so!

Note how, in more than one Report and Order, FCC has pointed out how
little testing it takes to upgrade to Extra. FCC has repeatedly turned
down all proposals that would have granted instant upgrades, like
making all Advanceds into Extras. Maybe it's time to take the hint.

Why can't the low end of 75 be moved 50 kHz instead of 150 kHz, and the
lower limit of each 'phone subband moved down 50 kHz? Then, each
license class would gain as many kHz of 'phone as they lose CW/rtty.
1:1 ratio for everyone.

If you don't think 50 kHz is enough, make it 75 kHz. The point is that
the most populous license class on the band *loses* the most total kHz!
The ratio is 1 kHz gained for 3 kHz lost - why?

The error is attaching the same value to General cw/rtty space per Khz
as you're attaching to their phone space per Khz. Which it is not.
Unless I'm 'way off the mark the vast majority of Generals won't miss
the cw/rtty space at all and they'll be delighted with their new phone
space. Note the lack of Generals expressing any opinions on the
subject. If they're not in here complaining about losing cw/rtty space
why should us OF Extras care about the subject one way or the other?

It sets a bad precedent.

How much will 3600-3700 be used when it is Extra-only?

We'll find out soon enough won't we? Then again the new 3600 band edge
could well be just a placeholder for "things to come" rather than just
another conventional expansion of phone space. This R&O has too many
oddities in it like this one for me to believe that the FCC is finished
"streamlining the service". Maybe it's the result of the ARRLs
pestering the FCC to publish a response to the NPRMs. So the FCC did
and damn the torpedoes so this is what we got. For now. Bought the FCC
more time to quietly come up with their "real" omnibus NPRM/R&O?

I think we're on to the same idea.

I wonder what FCC really thinks of us hams. Sure, they say certain
things - because they have to. But consider what amateur radio may look
like to at least some of them:

We have huge amounts of spectrum set aside for us by international
treaty, and we yelp at the loss of even small amounts of it to other
services.We don't generate any real revenue, yet we keep asking for
more enforcement.

Users of other services complain about interference from us (even when
it's not our fault) and we complain about interference from power
lines, appliances, etc., that don't seem to bother anybody else. We
raise holy heck over new technologies like BPL, even though the
state-of-the-art experts who design the new technologies say we
amateurs are wrong.

And now the big one:

We amateurs send in way too many petitions/proposals to FCC, and then
cannot agree about what we really want.

I think what FCC expects is for us hams to argue amongst ourselves and
work out what rules we really want *before* sending in any
petitions/proposals. Then, when a proposal is sent in and FCC gives it
an RM number, the comments are overwhelmingly positive and FCC's job is
easy.

Look at the recent "bandwidth" proposals. ARRL sends in one, a group
called CTT sends in another. Both are given RM numbers and very short
comment periods. Both get a ton of comments - overwhelmingly opposed!
CTT is opposed even more than ARRL (something like 7 or 8 to 1 against
for both of them).

Could be that the folks at FCC who have to go through all that are
angry at having to deal with it? Two groups who both claim to know
what's best for amateur radio sent in proposals that cost a lot of FCC
resources. But neither group gets widespread amateur support *first*,
so the comments are an overwhelming "NO!" to both proposals.

The Morse Code test issue is even more of a mess. Treaty changes, FCC
gets *18* proposals! Huh? Some are poles apart while others are
virtually identical. They gotta deal with 18 RMs and comments on all of
them. One self-proclaimed "PROFESSIONAL", who isn't even a ham and
doesn't intend to be one, sends them hundreds of pages of comments and
reply comments, which they have to wade through.

Now look at what Industry Canada dealt with. The national society
worked out a compromise on the issue, got consensus from its members
and the general Canadian amateur radio community, *then* made a
proposal - complete with detailed poll results. Proposal was supported
in comments and sailed right through. RAC made IC's work easy.

When's the last time *any* proposal sent to FCC by hams (not just ARRL)
got widespread support in the comments?

73 de Jim, N2EY