"Joe Collins" wrote in message
...
Now that Bruce Parens and NCI have won the CW wars, what will happen
to the exclusive CW allocations if a CW requirement is dropped?
Certainly there can be no argument for keeping the current band
structure in place, and phone operations probably ought to be spread
out into what was once exclusively reserved for CW operators. Not
only would this alleviate the congestion in the phone bands, but it
would finally and officially place CW into perspective: Just another
optional mode of operation without any exclusive rights to any
frequency.

Remember it is not only CW that uses these sections of the bands but also
the other digital modes. The large number of hams in the US combined with
the limited amount of HF spectrum allotted to hams means some time of
regulation may continue to be necessary here. While a voluntary band plan
might work, I wouldn't count on it. I've read postings from Europeans where
they have problems because people will not follow the band plans especially
during their contests. They have a lot fewer hams than we do.

Given the activity on the air right now and the last several weeks, the
congestion has been in the CW/digital subbands not the phone bands.
Conditions on phone have been poor and there has, in general been little
activity, other than a pileup or two on a DX station. Expanding the phone
bands won't clear up those types of activities.

So since there isn't any real congestion in the phone bands right now, there
is no need to expand them at the expense of all the digital modes (PSK31,
RTTY, Amtor, Packet, a myriad of lesser known modes, and also CW).

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Joe Collins" wrote in message


....what will happen to the exclusive CW allocations....

Except in the USA, most amateurs do not labor under "sub-bands" based on
mode. As an example Canadian amateur have no such restrictions. It's a
source of continuing wonder to me that the FCC continues to arbitrarily
slice and dice the bands based on mode, license class, power levels, and
similar artificial constructs of their imagination.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: There are no "exclusive CW allocations" below 50MHz.



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com...
"Joe Collins" wrote in message
...
Now that Bruce Parens and NCI have won the CW wars, what will happen
to the exclusive CW allocations if a CW requirement is dropped?
Certainly there can be no argument for keeping the current band
structure in place, and phone operations probably ought to be spread
out into what was once exclusively reserved for CW operators. Not
only would this alleviate the congestion in the phone bands, but it
would finally and officially place CW into perspective: Just another
optional mode of operation without any exclusive rights to any
frequency.

Remember it is not only CW that uses these sections of the bands but also
the other digital modes. The large number of hams in the US combined with
the limited amount of HF spectrum allotted to hams means some time of
regulation may continue to be necessary here. While a voluntary band plan
might work, I wouldn't count on it. I've read postings from Europeans where
they have problems because people will not follow the band plans especially
during their contests. They have a lot fewer hams than we do.

Given the activity on the air right now and the last several weeks, the
congestion has been in the CW/digital subbands not the phone bands.
Conditions on phone have been poor and there has, in general been little
activity, other than a pileup or two on a DX station. Expanding the phone
bands won't clear up those types of activities.

So since there isn't any real congestion in the phone bands right now, there
is no need to expand them at the expense of all the digital modes (PSK31,
RTTY, Amtor, Packet, a myriad of lesser known modes, and also CW).

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I agree with Dee's post in it's entirety. While I can accept the
paring down of the present "Novice" allocations to make more phone
spectrum available on those bands, CW and the other narrowband modes
still enjoy significant following among ALL operators on all HF bands.

Perhaps it might be more "palatable" to those who disdain Morse
Code if we simply refer to them as "narrow band" and "wideband"
allocations?

73

Steve, K4YZ

"K0HB" wrote in message news:ed9e3d3ed0c3403349a2a6882a98d900.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
"Joe Collins" wrote in message


....what will happen to the exclusive CW allocations....

Except in the USA, most amateurs do not labor under "sub-bands" based on
mode. As an example Canadian amateur have no such restrictions. It's a
source of continuing wonder to me that the FCC continues to arbitrarily
slice and dice the bands based on mode, license class, power levels, and
similar artificial constructs of their imagination.

I imagine that the "class" restrictions will fade soon.

As for mode restrictions, see my comment on Dee's post...Perhaps
if we consider these as "wideband" and "narrowband" allocations it
would be more palatable to all (or at least more)?

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: There are no "exclusive CW allocations" below 50MHz.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ilgate.org,
K0HB wrote:

Except in the USA, most amateurs do not labor under "sub-bands" based on
mode. As an example Canadian amateur have no such restrictions. It's a
source of continuing wonder to me that the FCC continues to arbitrarily
slice and dice the bands based on mode, license class, power levels, and
similar artificial constructs of their imagination.

Not only that but the stupid allocation of the 7.00-7.100 as a CW
only band makes 40 meters almost unusable outside of the U.S. That's
our entire 40 meter band, and so we can't work the states without spilt
operation, which doesn't often work because we are swamped with European
brodcasters.

We can't work locally, because by convention, we use ssb in the upper
half and get destroyed by all those digital signals that come from the
U.S. and clobber us.

IMHO the best thing to do is open 7.050-7.100 for ssb in the U.S. and move
the digital stuff to the old novice band.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson 972-54-608-069
Do sysadmins count networked sheep?

Joe Collins wrote:
Now that Bruce Parens and NCI have won the CW wars, what will happen
to the exclusive CW allocations if a CW requirement is dropped?
Certainly there can be no argument for keeping the current band
structure in place, and phone operations probably ought to be spread
out into what was once exclusively reserved for CW operators. Not
only would this alleviate the congestion in the phone bands, but it
would finally and officially place CW into perspective: Just another
optional mode of operation without any exclusive rights to any
frequency.

This cannot be, for no one wants to take anything away from Morse code
users.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo wrote:

This cannot be, for no one wants to take anything away from Morse code
users.

Why not, 8 years ago, the Arrl did a survey. They asked amateurs who had
passed a morse code exam if they EVER used morse code. Two out of three
responded "no". I.e. 2/3's of the hams surveyed NEVER used morse code.

Of course in those days they spun it as "1 out 3 sometimes uses morse code".

So if it came to a vote you'd have a hard time keeping things as they are.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson 972-54-608-069
Do sysadmins count networked sheep?

"K0HB" wrote in message
news:ed9e3d3ed0c3403349a2a6882a98d900.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org...
"Joe Collins" wrote in message


....what will happen to the exclusive CW allocations....

Except in the USA, most amateurs do not labor under "sub-bands" based on
mode. As an example Canadian amateur have no such restrictions. It's a
source of continuing wonder to me that the FCC continues to arbitrarily
slice and dice the bands based on mode, license class, power levels, and
similar artificial constructs of their imagination.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: There are no "exclusive CW allocations" below 50MHz.

Keep in mind that the US has over 600,000 amateurs. The only other country
with similar numbers is Japan, most of whom are limited to very low power
operation however. If Japan is excluded, all the other countries combined
don't have as many amateurs as the US. The foreign countries do have band
plans. Unfortunately they do not honor these band plans during contests. It
is unlikely that the US would do any better in following voluntary band
plans so with our numbers of hams, it may very well be wiser to keep
regulated restrictions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
In article ilgate.org,
K0HB wrote:

Except in the USA, most amateurs do not labor under "sub-bands" based on
mode. As an example Canadian amateur have no such restrictions. It's a
source of continuing wonder to me that the FCC continues to arbitrarily
slice and dice the bands based on mode, license class, power levels, and
similar artificial constructs of their imagination.

Not only that but the stupid allocation of the 7.00-7.100 as a CW
only band makes 40 meters almost unusable outside of the U.S. That's
our entire 40 meter band, and so we can't work the states without spilt
operation, which doesn't often work because we are swamped with European
brodcasters.

We can't work locally, because by convention, we use ssb in the upper
half and get destroyed by all those digital signals that come from the
U.S. and clobber us.

IMHO the best thing to do is open 7.050-7.100 for ssb in the U.S. and move
the digital stuff to the old novice band.

Geoff.

The recent WRC conference has directed broadcasters to move out of the 7.00
to 7.200 segment by 2009 and that will become a ham only band worldwide.

Opening up 7.050 to 7.100 for ssb in the US won't solve your problems. You
will still get clobbered by the US digital signals as they won't move. It's
too well established in the band plans for people to change.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo wrote:

This cannot be, for no one wants to take anything away from Morse code
users.

Why not, 8 years ago, the Arrl did a survey. They asked amateurs who had
passed a morse code exam if they EVER used morse code. Two out of three
responded "no". I.e. 2/3's of the hams surveyed NEVER used morse code.

Of course in those days they spun it as "1 out 3 sometimes uses morse
code".

So if it came to a vote you'd have a hard time keeping things as they are.

Geoff.

The ARRL had a new survey in the last 6 months. Half of the respondants use
morse any where from occasionally to 100% of the time. Morse code usage
appears to be on the rise. In the past year, participation in the ARRL
Morse contests showed an increase of 20% over the previous year.
Participation in the voice contests was practically the same as last year
with virtually no growth.

So that 8 year old survey does not reflect today's situation.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE