"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
.net...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a

Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs......



Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they
could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals?


Removing the test would be the ultimate filter.

- Mike KB3EIA -

That'll likely happen, Mike. If and when Element 1 is retained solely
for
the Extra, I suspect the Extra CW sub-bands will become a pretty
crowded
place. Kinda silly as those who won't (Not can't.) learn CW won't be on

any

CW sub-bands.

73 de Bert
WA2SI



I've been a Extra for 30 years now. I hardly ever operate in the
exclusive
subbands, either phone or cw. But here lately I have been.

I have no problem with leaving 50 khz per band for CW.


We don't have that now! On HF/MF, there are *no* CW-only subbands.

I think such subbands are a very good idea. Something like this:

CW-only subbands:

160 meters: 1800-1850 kHz
80 meters: 3500-3575 kHz
40 meters: 7000-7050 kHz
30 meters: 10100-10120 kHz
20 meters: 14000-14075 kHz
17 meters: 18068-18088 kHz
15 meters: 21000-21075 kHz
12 meters: 24890-24910 kHz
10 meters: 28000-28100 kHz

Bottom 25 kHz of 80/40/20/15 reserved for Extras. Rest is available to
all other classes of license. CW would still be legal outside these
subbands but observance of the subbands would be encouraged as good
operating practice.

Why not?

You'd think that such a move would be offered by at least some of the
nocodetest folks...


Sorry Jim, they are busy with trying to lower the test requirements
right now.

After all the Technicians are freebied up to General, they'll turn
their attentions to those pesky and annoying gentleman's agreements for
CW portions.

I'll bet you a pepperoni and cheese pizza that their bandplans will
look quite different than yours. Theirs will be much simpler!

The rationale will be that it is SO much trouble for people to keep
within bandplans that it is a big headache for hams to keep track of
where they are supposed to be. And why do those CW people get half our
bands anyhow?

The most amusing part will be when Carl and Bill show up with their
spin on how it *isn't* a spectrum grab.

But you know, I suspect that in the brave new world of
post-restructuring ARS, that the new hams will simply do squatters
rights on the bandplan. It's only an agreement, so what can we do if
they decide to work there?

I wonder when the first CW segment SSB contest will be held?

- Mike KB3EIA -


And I wonder how a DSP filter will handle a drifty, chirping CW signal?

Dan/W4NTI

N2EY wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a

Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs......


Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they
could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals?

Removing the test would be the ultimate filter.


The short answer is "because we're not 'elitist snobs' and our feet
are not 'firmly planted in the past'

The longer, more accurate answer is that it's not as simple as some
folks would like you to think.

For some, it really is "just about the code test". But for others, the
real issue is something variously called 'standards' or
'achievements'. That's where the real disagreement is. And it comes
out in a whole bunch of ways.

For me, it is about standards.


For example, how often have you heard the buzzphrases "it's a hobby"
or "it's just a hobby" or similar, given as an argument against some
requirement or another? Think about what the person pushing those
phrases really means. They're usually *not* saying "it's not a job".
Instead, what they're really saying is "don't expect much" or even
"don't expect anything".

Right. "Mongo say Learning BAD"!

Look at how the *written* exams have changed over the years, despite
claims that "it's just about the code test". Yet we have vocal support
for free upgrades and further written test reductions.

Did you see the article on "is training class efficient?" which
detailed a one-day-to-Tech cram course? They boasted an 85% success
rate - meaning that after just one day of class, 85% of their students
passed the Tech test. This was done by rote memorization of the
written exam question pool. Is this really what's best for the future
of the ARS? Some folks think so!

This is what almost all university students do. It's "cramming". And it
kind of works. The "kind of" part is that the knowledge does not make it
into long term memory. So while a person can take and pass a test using
this method, the knowledge gained goes away right after the test for the
most part.

But it isn't the fault of question pools - it is how they are used. I
used the pools and on line tests when I went for my tickets. First thing
I did was take an on line test. Then with the aid of the pool, reference
books and even the web, I looked up the answers to the questions that I
missed. I kept taking tests, and kept going back and learning what I missed.

By the time I was finished, I KNEW the answers, and it wasn't from
memorization, save the band edge stuff.

I put forth the proposition that it is just as easy to cram with
textbooks as it is with question pools. I can read a textbook as easily
as I can a question pool. It is all a question of how we use th etools
we are given. And no one can control that.


When you see arguments for "one class of license" ask "with what
requirements?" - but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

I like one class - Amateur Extra.

When you see people railing about "standards and requirements of the
1930s", ask what they propose as the "standards and requirements of
the 2000s" - but again, don't hold your breath waiting for a detailed
answer.

Some folks don't think there should be *any* standards or requirements
beyond a bare bones set of rules and regs from FCC. Of course we know
what happens in a radio service where that is the norm. It isn't
pretty.

Amazing that some of those people are otherwise smart.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message

hlink.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
. cv.net...


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a

Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs......



Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they
could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals?


Removing the test would be the ultimate filter.

- Mike KB3EIA -

That'll likely happen, Mike. If and when Element 1 is retained solely

for

the Extra, I suspect the Extra CW sub-bands will become a pretty

crowded

place. Kinda silly as those who won't (Not can't.) learn CW won't be on

any


CW sub-bands.

73 de Bert
WA2SI



I've been a Extra for 30 years now. I hardly ever operate in the

exclusive

subbands, either phone or cw. But here lately I have been.

I have no problem with leaving 50 khz per band for CW.


We don't have that now! On HF/MF, there are *no* CW-only subbands.

I think such subbands are a very good idea. Something like this:

CW-only subbands:

160 meters: 1800-1850 kHz
80 meters: 3500-3575 kHz
40 meters: 7000-7050 kHz
30 meters: 10100-10120 kHz
20 meters: 14000-14075 kHz
17 meters: 18068-18088 kHz
15 meters: 21000-21075 kHz
12 meters: 24890-24910 kHz
10 meters: 28000-28100 kHz

Bottom 25 kHz of 80/40/20/15 reserved for Extras. Rest is available to
all other classes of license. CW would still be legal outside these
subbands but observance of the subbands would be encouraged as good
operating practice.

Why not?

You'd think that such a move would be offered by at least some of the
nocodetest folks...


Sorry Jim, they are busy with trying to lower the test requirements
right now.

After all the Technicians are freebied up to General, they'll turn
their attentions to those pesky and annoying gentleman's agreements for
CW portions.

I'll bet you a pepperoni and cheese pizza that their bandplans will
look quite different than yours. Theirs will be much simpler!

The rationale will be that it is SO much trouble for people to keep
within bandplans that it is a big headache for hams to keep track of
where they are supposed to be. And why do those CW people get half our
bands anyhow?

The most amusing part will be when Carl and Bill show up with their
spin on how it *isn't* a spectrum grab.

But you know, I suspect that in the brave new world of
post-restructuring ARS, that the new hams will simply do squatters
rights on the bandplan. It's only an agreement, so what can we do if
they decide to work there?

I wonder when the first CW segment SSB contest will be held?

- Mike KB3EIA -



And I wonder how a DSP filter will handle a drifty, chirping CW signal?

Dan/W4NTI

I've never tried it, but I suspect that it might be a great method to
make the signal go away?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
.net...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

If Pro CW Testing Amateurs a

Feet firmly planted in the past folks and elitist snobs......



Why wouldn't they WANT the Morse code testing eliminated so that they
could get on the air and only associate with like minded individuals?


Removing the test would be the ultimate filter.

- Mike KB3EIA -

That'll likely happen, Mike. If and when Element 1 is retained solely
for
the Extra, I suspect the Extra CW sub-bands will become a pretty
crowded
place. Kinda silly as those who won't (Not can't.) learn CW won't be on

any

CW sub-bands.

73 de Bert
WA2SI



I've been a Extra for 30 years now. I hardly ever operate in the
exclusive
subbands, either phone or cw. But here lately I have been.

I have no problem with leaving 50 khz per band for CW.


We don't have that now! On HF/MF, there are *no* CW-only subbands.

I think such subbands are a very good idea. Something like this:

CW-only subbands:

160 meters: 1800-1850 kHz
80 meters: 3500-3575 kHz
40 meters: 7000-7050 kHz
30 meters: 10100-10120 kHz
20 meters: 14000-14075 kHz
17 meters: 18068-18088 kHz
15 meters: 21000-21075 kHz
12 meters: 24890-24910 kHz
10 meters: 28000-28100 kHz

Bottom 25 kHz of 80/40/20/15 reserved for Extras. Rest is available to
all other classes of license. CW would still be legal outside these
subbands but observance of the subbands would be encouraged as good
operating practice.

Why not?

You'd think that such a move would be offered by at least some of the
nocodetest folks...


Sorry Jim, they are busy with trying to lower the test requirements
right now.

After all the Technicians are freebied up to General, they'll turn
their attentions to those pesky and annoying gentleman's agreements for
CW portions.

I'll bet you a pepperoni and cheese pizza that their bandplans will
look quite different than yours. Theirs will be much simpler!

The rationale will be that it is SO much trouble for people to keep
within bandplans that it is a big headache for hams to keep track of
where they are supposed to be. And why do those CW people get half our
bands anyhow?

The most amusing part will be when Carl and Bill show up with their
spin on how it *isn't* a spectrum grab.

But you know, I suspect that in the brave new world of
post-restructuring ARS, that the new hams will simply do squatters
rights on the bandplan. It's only an agreement, so what can we do if
they decide to work there?

I wonder when the first CW segment SSB contest will be held?

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike, it sounds like you are confusing band plans and regulated segment
divistions. The HF bands have segments where only CW and data modes are
allowed by regulation. Phone and slow scan TV cannot be used at all in
those segments. However there is the "gentleman's agreement band plan"
layered on top of that. For example, in the CW/data portion, RTTY is
operated in certain segments by agreement. Up in the phone portions, the
SST enthusiasts operate in certain segments by agreement. If new hams try
to operate voice outside the voice segments on HF, they will not only be in
violation of the bandplans but will be in violation of FCC regulations,
which could cost them their licenses.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Wahoo! It's been a long, long time! But, I'll be checking back in now and
then...

Kim W5TIT

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Dee" == Dee D Flint writes:

[...]

Dee Mike, it sounds like you are confusing band plans and regulated
Dee segment divistions. The HF bands have segments where only CW and
Dee data modes are allowed by regulation. Phone and slow scan TV
Dee cannot be used at all in those segments. However there is the
Dee "gentleman's agreement band plan" layered on top of that. For
Dee example, in the CW/data portion, RTTY is operated in certain
Dee segments by agreement. Up in the phone portions, the SST
Dee enthusiasts operate in certain segments by agreement. If new
Dee hams try to operate voice outside the voice segments on HF, they
Dee will not only be in violation of the bandplans but will be in
Dee violation of FCC regulations, which could cost them their
Dee licenses.

Hmm. Any chance you could provide some citations for these
"gentleman's agreements"? I do not doubt their existence, I'd just
like to find some online pointers to them. Recently I had to ask
around where to find some RTTY so I could test my setup -- if I'd
known about these agreements, I'd have a better chance of finding it
on my own. Also, I'd like to avoid accidentally operating on a
portion of the band which is traditionally for a different type of
mode -- I'm more likely to get a response from a CW CQ if I'm not
calling on the RTTY portion, etc.

Dee Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAtYJJGPFSfAB/ezgRAkpGAKCrcL+B7tVTtQGPgaD85JFIa/jDBgCg3+lp
8KEIKeHmbpIIG0zArUPBL/E=
=FrQo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

wrote in message ...
Wahoo! It's been a long, long time! But, I'll be checking back in now and
then...

Welcome back, Kim.

Hope the new home is all you expected it to be.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
Wahoo! It's been a long, long time! But, I'll be checking back in now and
then...

Kim W5TIT

Kim, Larry's been gone since you left. Group has just about
disintegrated. PCTA's have all but imploded. Otherwise, same stuff,
different millenium.

bb

"Jack Twilley" wrote in message
...
Hmm. Any chance you could provide some citations for these
"gentleman's agreements"? I do not doubt their existence, I'd just
like to find some online pointers to them. Recently I had to ask
around where to find some RTTY so I could test my setup -- if I'd
known about these agreements, I'd have a better chance of finding it
on my own. Also, I'd like to avoid accidentally operating on a
portion of the band which is traditionally for a different type of
mode -- I'm more likely to get a response from a CW CQ if I'm not
calling on the RTTY portion, etc.

www.arrl.org - The website has a page listing the basics
The ARRL Operating Manual
Various ARRL publications on data modes and slow scan TV
For VHF/UHF, the ARRL repeater directory

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Dee" == Dee D Flint writes:

Jack Hmm. Any chance you could provide some citations for these
Jack "gentleman's agreements"? I do not doubt their existence, I'd
Jack just like to find some online pointers to them. Recently I had
Jack to ask around where to find some RTTY so I could test my setup
Jack -- if I'd known about these agreements, I'd have a better chance
Jack of finding it on my own. Also, I'd like to avoid accidentally
Jack operating on a portion of the band which is traditionally for a
Jack different type of mode -- I'm more likely to get a response from
Jack a CW CQ if I'm not calling on the RTTY portion, etc.

Dee www.arrl.org - The website has a page listing the basics The ARRL
Dee Operating Manual Various ARRL publications on data modes and slow
Dee scan TV For VHF/UHF, the ARRL repeater directory

I was more interested in URLs to specific agreements. I've cruised
through the website from time to time but I hadn't happened to see
them. I lost my repeater directory in a car accident (how bizarre)
otherwise I'd check the front of that. I'm more interested in HF, of
course, so if you could point me to specific agreements, I'd be
dearly appreciative. Stuff like "weak signal work is done here,
beacons are done there, blah blah blah" are exactly what I'd like to
keep posted in my shack, and this kind of information should be
consolidated in a single source online.

Dee Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAtho2GPFSfAB/ezgRAuvpAJ9sG6DBnHCksZysr5NDBzsr2S2tbQCgndNm
JDX8dp+0QzDcMIL4yIwuDp4=
=9pTV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----