Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes, except for a little terrorist activity which has not proved to be
worth my worry lately--this dropping of CW seems to be the most exciting thing in some people life... yawn John wrote in message ups.com... From: John Smith on Jul 21, 11:59 am I agree. With the congestion on CB and there being only 40 chans for all the truck drivers, four wheelers, base stations and freebanders, it is a mess. More bandwidth has been needed for over a decade. More than THREE decades, John. CB is 47 years old. The sudden explosion of imported transceivers on the marketplace took place in the early 1960s. Most do want to chat with others in other countries, "skip" will be the mode of the day on HF--at least I'd imagine that to be the case. Sorry, you can't really say "skip" in here. That's a four- letter word used by CBers, as in "shooting skip." :-) One can still "pioneer the airwaves below 200 meters!" That's the MYTH. Of course the commercial and government and military people already did that early, used it, and moved on. :-) [I was there, on it, helping to use it, 50 years ago...] However, I have never seen a real case of where what actually happens is able to be "prophesized" accurately before the actual situation--it will be interesting to watch. No? Oh, my, I've met dozens of "nostrahamus" predictors in my time. The ham sky fell in 1958 when CODELESS, TESTLESS CB happened on HF!!! The ham sky fell in 1990 when FCC 90-53 created the NO CODE TEST Technician (ugh, ptui, spit) was to start in 1991. The ham sky fell in 1999 when the latest "restructuring" was ordered to take place in 2001 with the maximum rate of 5 WPM for ALL morse code tests! The ham sky has fallen so many times that it's a wonder the Earth hasn't turned into an ultra dense ball of neutrons. :-) WT Docket 05-235 is going to turn out to be more of a TITLE, RANK, PRIVILEGE bust for the ham "nobility." Oh, they will still trumpet their high-skill morsemanship as the "best of the best [morse] operators" and snarl at all others for being mere "yakkers into a mike." The snarls will still be there, frozen into rictus grins when they assume room temperature. The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio operators as (partly) having a "proven unique ability to enhance international goodwill." Funny, they don't comment about their unique ability to be as quarrelsome as possible domestically... It's a Great Day a Dawning! Huzzah! :-) |
#43
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() As I often said in the past 5 years, when FCC wrote that code testing served no regulatory purpose other than treaty compliance, the deal was essentially done. The amazing thing was that it's taken two years to get this far. More likely it took that long because the FCC had more important stuff to deal with. They didn't ban Morse Code. They just dropped the license test for it. CW will survive anyway. We ought to start CW training nets to get hams to get into CW. Use the old novice subbands for it. Sure, you'll hear lots of bad sending at first, but people will improve over time. |
#44
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() When that is done we can remove all references to training and technical/operational competency from the Basis and Purpose of Part 97. "Technical" is still covered in the written tests. Aside from no more CW test, "operational" still has a few questions in the writtens. Oh, people newly licensed will make newbie errors, but most people are smart enough to soon spot and correct such errors. Remember that 14.313 was that way back in the days of 13wpm generals... And that HF didn't go down the toilet after Restructuring 2000 happened. |
#45
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message oups.com... wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc Ugly. Really ugly. But who of us in the PCTA camp, realistically, actually had themselves deluded into thinking the FCC would take any other path? This "NPRM" is not "an opportunity to comment", it's an announcement about the way it's absolutely gonna be. Period. They'll go thru the NPRM motions only because the law sez they have to and they'll patiently tap their fingers on the table until the deluge of desparate commnents is over then declare the POS they published today a done deal. I agree with Dee, the only visible impact this latest "restructing" will be is another quickie bubble of upgrades and nothing more then back then the bands as usual. I could care less about any of it at this late date because none of it has any effect at all on me. I've been allowed to beep, yak and PSK my buns off everywhere band edge to band edge ever since I did 13 wpm fast enough for the examiner to make me a General over a half century ago. With an annoying side trip in 1968 to do 20 wpm to reconfirm my abilty to beep good enough to retain my privs under that particular FCC "restructuring" brainfart. Game over, I'm opting out of any further participation in any of this BS. Seeya in the pileups on 14.020. Ya dunno how to do 14.020? Good: Less QRM for me. Eat yer heart out. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv Rest assured the FCC is going to do whatever is easiest for THEM. There may be a upward surge of new "Ultra Lite Extra's" (Did I really say that???).....and in a short time the bands will still sound deserted. There is a lot more at work here then just dropping CW. Check out the bands lately? Where are all those new "light" hams anyway? Danged if I can find them. All you that gloat over losing one of the glues that hold/held ham radio together will rue this day. And no I'm not a stuck in the mud, cw only operator, I just see the hand writing on the wall. Lennie is happy now. He can sneak over to a test session and get his General...... Dan/W4NTI |
#46
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Try 30 meters, good CW band.
Dan/W4NTI wrote in message ups.com... wrote: wrote: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc Ugly. Really ugly. But who of us in the PCTA camp, realistically, actually had themselves deluded into thinking the FCC would take any other path? As I often said in the past 5 years, when FCC wrote that code testing served no regulatory purpose other than treaty compliance, the deal was essentially done. The amazing thing was that it's taken two years to get this far. This "NPRM" is not "an opportunity to comment", it's an announcement about the way it's absolutely gonna be. Period. They'll go thru the NPRM motions only because the law sez they have to and they'll patiently tap their fingers on the table until the deluge of desparate commnents is over then declare the POS they published today a done deal. I'll comment, like always. I agree with Dee, the only visible impact this latest "restructing" will be is another quickie bubble of upgrades and nothing more then back then the bands as usual. Yup. Then the "barrier" folks will find another excuse. Got my antenna back up last night (had to take it down Sunday for the new siding to go on the house). 40 was full of CW signals. Nice chat with a VE2 on 7031. Life is good. I could care less about any of it at this late date because none of it has any effect at all on me. I've been allowed to beep, yak and PSK my buns off everywhere band edge to band edge ever since I did 13 wpm fast enough for the examiner to make me a General over a half century ago. With an annoying side trip in 1968 to do 20 wpm to reconfirm my abilty to beep good enough to retain my privs under that particular FCC "restructuring" brainfart. Exactly. Game over, I'm opting out of any further participation in any of this BS. Seeya in the pileups on 14.020. Ya dunno how to do 14.020? Good: Less QRM for me. Eat yer heart out. bwaahaahaa 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#47
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "K4YZ" wrote in message ups.com... wrote: wrote: I agree with Dee, the only visible impact this latest "restructing" will be is another quickie bubble of upgrades and nothing more then back then the bands as usual. Yup. Then the "barrier" folks will find another excuse. Yep. Just like with Novice Enhancement, the introduction of the NCT and Restructuring... I find it laughable that the FCC would use the same worn out and obviously untrue language that "this" change will bring all those technically-oriented people into the Amateur fold. They said the exact same thing with the last three aforementioned evolutions and it wasn't true then. Indeed we dropped the Code Test in 91 for 97% of all Amateur allocations, including the highly sought after VHF/UHF spectrum. The REAL argument has been over that last 3%, or the HF allocations. So where were all those engineering-types then? People like "You-Know-Who" have been arguing that his ilk don't get licenses due to not being able to get on HF...Yet they ALSO argue that the license is most valuable for experimenting. Well...All of the REAL "experimenting" is going on ABOVE 30MHz, not below it, so the argument is moot. They, like everyone else, want to get on HF and "shoot skip", nothing more. I'm betting that it remains CW for Extra, and no code for Generals, unless the FCC want's to disband the phone-vs-narrow band subdivisions. I think there will be sufficient argument to keep that much. The next two arguments are going to be to squeeze all of the non-voice modes into 50 or 75KHz of spectrum on each band since all of those new codeless Generals will want to spead out, and to have only one or two license classes. When that is done we can remove all references to training and technical/operational competency from the Basis and Purpose of Part 97. Shortly thereafter we can move all of Part 97 to Part 95. Maybe re-write both parts into one, new, Part 96? Perhaps we can also add new bands at 061, 08, 04, 03 etc Meters so those claiming unfairness in testing criteria due to "dyslexia" can operate legally...?!?! 73 Steve, K4YZ May not be all that far removed from reality there Steve. Dan/W4NTI |
#48
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "K4YZ" wrote in message ups.com... wrote: wrote: I agree with Dee, the only visible impact this latest "restructing" will be is another quickie bubble of upgrades and nothing more then back then the bands as usual. Yup. Then the "barrier" folks will find another excuse. Yep. Just like with Novice Enhancement, the introduction of the NCT and Restructuring... I find it laughable that the FCC would use the same worn out and obviously untrue language that "this" change will bring all those technically-oriented people into the Amateur fold. They said the exact same thing with the last three aforementioned evolutions and it wasn't true then. Indeed we dropped the Code Test in 91 for 97% of all Amateur allocations, including the highly sought after VHF/UHF spectrum. The REAL argument has been over that last 3%, or the HF allocations. So where were all those engineering-types then? People like "You-Know-Who" have been arguing that his ilk don't get licenses due to not being able to get on HF...Yet they ALSO argue that the license is most valuable for experimenting. Well...All of the REAL "experimenting" is going on ABOVE 30MHz, not below it, so the argument is moot. They, like everyone else, want to get on HF and "shoot skip", nothing more. I'm betting that it remains CW for Extra, and no code for Generals, unless the FCC want's to disband the phone-vs-narrow band subdivisions. I think there will be sufficient argument to keep that much. The next two arguments are going to be to squeeze all of the non-voice modes into 50 or 75KHz of spectrum on each band since all of those new codeless Generals will want to spead out, and to have only one or two license classes. When that is done we can remove all references to training and technical/operational competency from the Basis and Purpose of Part 97. Shortly thereafter we can move all of Part 97 to Part 95. Maybe re-write both parts into one, new, Part 96? Perhaps we can also add new bands at 061, 08, 04, 03 etc Meters so those claiming unfairness in testing criteria due to "dyslexia" can operate legally...?!?! 73 Steve, K4YZ Steve, So far (cross fingers) cw is legal *anywhere* in the ham bands (other than, I believe, 60 meters) so long as one's license class permits transmitting. I have, in the past, found it an excellent way of confounding someone who jumps on me (of course, that was when all amateurs had some ability on cw - a minimum of 13 words per minute on hf in the voice bands). Funny thing how Mike, W2OY's killerwatt couldn't touch my 75 watts LOL. Even funnier was the way his blood pressure was going up whilst I continued a nice contact with Ohio despite his best efforts. Both the other guy and I could handle cw quite well. After a number of "qrq" sent back and fourth, we were humming along at a nice rate, neither pushing speed limits nor plodding along. It was somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 45 words per minute and we continued for a good half hour more. Every now and then, I'd open the rx bandwidth to hear Mike screaming "take those toys down into the cw band". Sure, Mike, just don't hold your breath. snort 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA So that's why Mike was up on his tower.....putting up a better 3.805 antenna...hi. Dan/W4NTI |
#49
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
So you are advocating the illegal jerks that got nailed (rightfully so) to
now get the freebee give away new ham ticket right? Then come onto the ham bands and act in a same or worse manner against those that find following the rules a good thing? Right? Dan/W4NTI "John Smith" wrote in message ... In one way, I can picture it being a "sad day." One of the posts here pointed out this possibility to me. For decades now a few of the guys (hams) here in my local area have terrorized CB'ers and freebanders. Invoking the FCC to send countless notices and confiscate equip and linears on a quite frequent basis. And, even two truck stops in the area have been favorite "hunting grounds" for these guys. Can you imagine the retaliation which is going to be spun against those hams which have been so inclined? The term "repaid in spades" occurs to me. I imagine some may forsake the hobby for other pursuits, or move to another area! Thank gawd I have always had enough common sense to practice the "good neighbor policy!" grin John wrote in message oups.com... http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#50
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc 73 de Jim, N2EY Hello, Jim Is the glass half empty or half full? I look at it this way: we will always know where to head for an interesting chat with someone knowlegeable. We'll know where to head to avoid profanity. We'll know where to head to avoid interference and folks screaming "AUDIOOOOOOO"/ We'll head for the cw bands. ![]() 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA I really feel sorry for the stations outside of conus. They are really going to hate us now. Dan/W4NTI |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|