wrote


sorry they may well have lost spectrum wher they can data i have n't
looked at the details but the rules concerning CW use have not changed


No, the rules concerning CW use have not changed. Those rules have never
allowed a General to transmit CW (or anything else) in frequencies reserved for
Extra and Advanced. In the case we're discussing the 150kHz from 3600 to 3750
have now been reserved for Extra and Advanced, and are now off limits to General
who previously could transmit CW/rtty/data in that segment.

73, de Hans, K0HB

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?

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?

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

---

One more question:

Why isn't rtty/data - particularly wider-than-1 kHz-data - allowed in
the 'phone bands? Or rather, why should that restriction remain,
particularly on a band that will be 4:1 phone/narrow modes? How are
those modes any different from SSTV or CW in terms of compatibility?

It seems to me that a combination voice-data mode would have all sorts
of uses in amateur radio. Imagine being in QSO with someone on SSB, and
being able to send a data file to them without having to QSY. In fact,
with a properly-designed rig, the data could be sent simultaneously on
the opposite sideband, or on the suppressed-carrier frequency if a mode
like PSK31 were used for data. Yet under current rules none of that is
allowed, and the 80/75 bandspace where data modes will be allowed for
*any* class of license will decrease from 250 kHz to 100 kHz - why?

73 de Jim, N2EY

KØHB wrote:
wrote


sorry they may well have lost spectrum wher they can data i have n't
looked at the details but the rules concerning CW use have not changed


No, the rules concerning CW use have not changed. Those rules have never
allowed a General to transmit CW (or anything else) in frequencies reserved for
Extra and Advanced. In the case we're discussing the 150kHz from 3600 to 3750
have now been reserved for Extra and Advanced, and are now off limits to General
who previously could transmit CW/rtty/data in that segment.
hmm they lost acutals hz did they? is that what you are tlaking around
or did things just get shuffed around same number hz justchanging the
mode avalable

in the later I say where the beef if they lose acutaul hz for any use
(total number for all modes then I have to wonder

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
. ..
Slow Code wrote in news:6tgXg.8071$Y24.103
@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

"Iitoi" wrote in
ink.net:

80M and 40M phone band expansion

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-06-149A1.doc


I don't know if we'll get Mad right away but it's clear the FCC and the
ARRL want to drive all good hams out of the service. Little by little
they'll take away the non-phone portions of the bands and hand it over to
the phone users. Like a frog in a pot of water that's raised to boiling
point, one day us real hams will find we have to place to communicate on
the ham bands that doesn't sound like Citizens Band.

SC


Here's a reality check.

On 80m the rest of the world, except Canada, has always had phone down to
3600 as far back as I can remember, and we are merely joining them. The VE
phone ops still have to stay above 3700, I think.

On 40m the international bandplans have phone down to 7040 except in
Region
3 where it is 7030. The only countries that I know of where you can't use
phone down to 7040 are Mexico (7050) and the USA (now 7125 after the
change).

US hams outside Region 2 have had phone down to 7075 for years, and I am
on
record as suggesting that we should have that in the mainland US. It's
hard
to see why not when you actually look at what the rest of the world is
doing.

At the same time countries in Region 1 aren't supposed to get access to
7100-7200 until the middle of 2007. Many of them already have, but for
those that haven't, a phone subband that goes down to 7125 still doesn't
even reach the top edge of their whole band. Doubtless some of them will
be
late in implementing the extra spectrum, so forced split working will drag
on a while longer. How would you like it if your 40m CW allocation were on
frequencies that were off limits to the DX?

On 20m and 15m we still have 50 kHz less phone on each band than all other
countries. Although General and Advanced got bigger phone subbands on 15
(as well as 80 and 40), the bottom edge of phone didn't move on 15 (or
20).

73 de Alun, N3KIP

(20wpm Extra, 100% phone op)


Keep in mind that the US has more hams than the entire rest of the world
combined if you don't include Japan in that count. So there is the
potential for problems if our voice allocations go too low. Our regulations
need to take that into account. As far as 40m goes, it will be a better
solution if they can move the broadcasters out and make it a worldwide ham
allocation up to 7.300. If the rest of the world could go to 7.3, that
would open up a tremendous amount of space for other countries.

Dee, N8UZE

KØHB wrote:
wrote


funny I thought they could still CW everywhere in band



That' may be true in theory, but not in practice. You can't use CW on
frequencies which your license class prohibits. Generals just lost 150kHz of
prime CW/rtty/data spectrum from 3.6 to 3.75MHz, the other parts of the band
their license class doesn't allow. So much for "CW everywhere in band".

73, de Hans, K0HB



The comment is that you can use CW anywhere within the allowable
frequencies for you class of license.

Dave WD9BDZ

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Slow Code wrote in news:6tgXg.8071$Y24.103
@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

"Iitoi" wrote in
ink.net:

80M and 40M phone band expansion

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-06-149A1.doc


I don't know if we'll get Mad right away but it's clear the FCC and the
ARRL want to drive all good hams out of the service. Little by little
they'll take away the non-phone portions of the bands and hand it over to
the phone users. Like a frog in a pot of water that's raised to boiling
point, one day us real hams will find we have to place to communicate on
the ham bands that doesn't sound like Citizens Band.

SC


Here's a reality check.

On 80m the rest of the world, except Canada, has always had phone down to
3600 as far back as I can remember, and we are merely joining them. The VE
phone ops still have to stay above 3700, I think.

On 40m the international bandplans have phone down to 7040 except in Region
3 where it is 7030. The only countries that I know of where you can't use
phone down to 7040 are Mexico (7050) and the USA (now 7125 after the
change).

US hams outside Region 2 have had phone down to 7075 for years, and I am on
record as suggesting that we should have that in the mainland US. It's hard
to see why not when you actually look at what the rest of the world is
doing.

At the same time countries in Region 1 aren't supposed to get access to
7100-7200 until the middle of 2007. Many of them already have, but for
those that haven't, a phone subband that goes down to 7125 still doesn't
even reach the top edge of their whole band. Doubtless some of them will be
late in implementing the extra spectrum, so forced split working will drag
on a while longer.

Alun you've been dumping this old whine into the groups for years now
and it's long since worn out. Not that it needs to be explained to you
*again* but the FCC is *protecting* the dx from the hordes of Yanks who
would obliterate the dx if we were allowed to run SSB below 7100.

Dee also explaned it in her immediately preceeding post, read it, give
us a break and internalize it this time then go find something new to
grouse about for the next five years. Maybe by then your chums in the
UK will be able to transceive with you above 7125.

How would you like it if your 40m CW allocation were on
frequencies that were off limits to the DX?

The difference is all about one SSB signal taking up the same amout of
spectrum space as 5-10 CW signals.

On 20m and 15m we still have 50 kHz less phone on each band than all other
countries. Although General and Advanced got bigger phone subbands on 15
(as well as 80 and 40), the bottom edge of phone didn't move on 15 (or 20).

73 de Alun, N3KIP

(20wpm Extra, 100% phone op)

There's your real problem.

w3rv

wrote:
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Slow Code wrote in news:6tgXg.8071$Y24.103
@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

"Iitoi" wrote in
ink.net:

80M and 40M phone band expansion

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-06-149A1.doc


I don't know if we'll get Mad right away but it's clear the FCC and the
ARRL want to drive all good hams out of the service. Little by little
they'll take away the non-phone portions of the bands and hand it over to
the phone users. Like a frog in a pot of water that's raised to boiling
point, one day us real hams will find we have to place to communicate on
the ham bands that doesn't sound like Citizens Band.

SC


Here's a reality check.

On 80m the rest of the world, except Canada, has always had phone down to
3600 as far back as I can remember, and we are merely joining them. The VE
phone ops still have to stay above 3700, I think.

On 40m the international bandplans have phone down to 7040 except in Region
3 where it is 7030. The only countries that I know of where you can't use
phone down to 7040 are Mexico (7050) and the USA (now 7125 after the
change).

US hams outside Region 2 have had phone down to 7075 for years, and I am on
record as suggesting that we should have that in the mainland US. It's hard
to see why not when you actually look at what the rest of the world is
doing.

At the same time countries in Region 1 aren't supposed to get access to
7100-7200 until the middle of 2007. Many of them already have, but for
those that haven't, a phone subband that goes down to 7125 still doesn't
even reach the top edge of their whole band. Doubtless some of them will be
late in implementing the extra spectrum, so forced split working will drag
on a while longer.

Alun you've been dumping this old whine into the groups for years now
and it's long since worn out. Not that it needs to be explained to you
*again* but the FCC is *protecting* the dx from the hordes of Yanks who
would obliterate the dx if we were allowed to run SSB below 7100.

the FCC does not care about protecting DX forgien or domestic the ARRL
may well have when they sugested this sort of arngementmany years (part
of incentive licening I supose)

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.

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?

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?


---

One more question:

Why isn't rtty/data - particularly wider-than-1 kHz-data - allowed in
the 'phone bands? Or rather, why should that restriction remain,
particularly on a band that will be 4:1 phone/narrow modes? How are
those modes any different from SSTV or CW in terms of compatibility?

It seems to me that a combination voice-data mode would have all sorts
of uses in amateur radio. Imagine being in QSO with someone on SSB, and
being able to send a data file to them without having to QSY. In fact,
with a properly-designed rig, the data could be sent simultaneously on
the opposite sideband, or on the suppressed-carrier frequency if a mode
like PSK31 were used for data. Yet under current rules none of that is
allowed, and the 80/75 bandspace where data modes will be allowed for
*any* class of license will decrease from 250 kHz to 100 kHz - why?

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:

the FCC does not care about protecting DX forgien or domestic

.. . . domestic DX . . ?

the ARRL
may well have when they sugested this sort of arngementmany years (part
of incentive licening I supose)

Doesn't matter where the concept came from originally, it's been in
place for decades.

w3rv

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