CW and SSB Coexisting
Jeff Goodspeed (KA9S)
on
December 2, 2006
View comments about this article!
The recent FCC Report and Order 06-149 has forced me to rethink my CW operating habits. The reallocation of spectrum previously designated as (CW and Data) to (Voice and Image) puts pressure on the CW and Data operators. Data operation is growing in popularity with the ever-growing number of soundcard based data modes. Many of these data modes require bandwidths similar to a typical SSB signal (psk-31 is an exception) and all occupy more bandwidth than CW signals. Data operators have no option but to stay within the sub-band segments allocated for CW and Data.
CW operators have always had the option to operate in all sub-band allocations appropriate for their level of license. With a growing base of data operators and a diminishing sub-band allocation for CW and Data, it seems reasonable for CW operators to seek spectrum relief in the Voice and Image sub-bands where it is just as legal to operate CW as anywhere else. The General class phone sub-bands look to be a good location for casual CW conversations as most amateur license holders with HF privileges have access to this sub-band.
CW operators have been co-exiting with European SSB operators for a long time and are accustomed to copying CW signals through the SSB splatter that often occurs. Current technology in SSB equipment offers a high degree of QRM immunity from CW signals to SSB signals through automatic and manual receiver notching features. A “notched-out” CW signal has only minor impacts on received SSB audio fidelity. I see no reason why these two modes of operation cannot coexist within the same spectrum. Good operating procedures will require both CW operators and SSB operators to avoid malicious interference.
SSB operators may be hearing a new mix of modes on their favorite frequencies in the near future.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by AI2IA on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When hams behave like gentlemen, just about anything is possible. When self-control is thrown out, courtesy is quickly discarded, aggression enters the picture, and things go to the dogs.
It's all very simple. Do your best to avoid splatter. If you hear traffic on a frequency, then QSY. If someone comes on over you, advise them twice if need be, and if they keep on, you QSY. Never return bad practice for bad practice. Keep your dignity and your good reputation as an operator. Can CW and SSB coexist? They certainly can!
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"SSB operators may be hearing a new mix of modes on their favorite frequencies in the near future. "
I beg to differ. CW ops are under enough pressure and stigma already, and they are staying in the usual band segments so as to NOT interfere with phone QSOs. If CW signals start showing up on the phone portions of the band, the anger and attacks will increase exponentially. That will probably lead to more petitions to the FCC.
As for me, I will NOT operate CW outside the CW portions of the bands. That would be self-destructive.
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by N0IU on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"SSB operators may be hearing a new mix of modes on their favorite frequencies in the near future."
This is even more incentive for me to leave the microphone in the box it came in when I bought my radio.
Scott N0IU
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W6TH on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
,
Why was it possible to operate cw in the phone portion of the band and there was never any complaint of doing so. This complaining of cw ops in the phone band, started in 1960, was brought into view by the new breed and for what reason to complain? I can no longer reason as to why the discontent for such an operation.
Many times in my days of operation we would be on phone and then on the same frequency with whom I was in qso with, we would go on cw for several hours at a time and was NEVER a complaint of any other phone operators, as a matter of fact, others would join in also, yes, cw on the phone band.
As it now stands from my point of view, one cannot be a ham operator unless he is a whiner or complainer, acting like a bunch of old, over the hill unwanted women living in a seniors retirement home.
CW being allowed by the rules and regulations of the FCC and in agreement of the ARRL should settle the discussion of and as to why cw is allowed in the phone bands, etc.
I use 100 percent cw and should I hear an old friend of mine on SSB, I have the perfect right to go to the SSB frequency of my friend and call him for a QSO as has been for many years before many of you were born.
W6TH.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.."Voice and Image sub-bands where it is just as legal to operate CW as anywhere else.."
It is just as legal to drive at 46 MPH on a busy interstate. I wouldn't recommend THAT, either!
Legality is not in question.
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by AI2IA on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We are only a few posts down on this subject and already the hostility is starting.
"The Radio Amateur begins: CONSIDERATE ... never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the pleasure of other." - Paul M. Segal, W9EEA, in 1928.
Take your copy of The Amateur's Code (I know you have it.) and hang it up in your shack. Coexisting begins with each one of us. Don't let those who use bad practice pull you and everyone else down.
It is good sense to stick with the CW portion most of the time and tread carefully when you go in other areas.
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KB9RQZ on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
one of the posters refered to amateurs Code I have to wonder if the Morse Hounds ( i like CW and will happily see you in CW Hell) if they have heard of the Code at all seem to think it applies only to others
I have in varioused comented on the culture of the the Morse Hounds and find them greedly and "not able to work or play well with others" the lead poster of this thread seem to fit that
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Take your copy of The Amateur's Code (I know you have it.) and hang it up in your shack. Coexisting begins with each one of us. Don't let those who use bad practice pull you and everyone else down.
It is good sense to stick with the CW portion most of the time and tread carefully when you go in other areas."
Amen.
Those CW ops who go into the SSB portion demanding "it is my right to operate here" will generate chaos that will bring the rest of us down.
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by N4KZ on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There's a big difference between what the FCC rules allow and what is considered to be good amateur practice. I enjoy and operate CW and several digital modes but would not operate those modes in any phone band unless there was an extreme need to do so.
When I got my ticket in the late 1960s, phone operators had a reputation of sometimes being unruly in DX pile-ups but CW ops were always gentlemen. Well, bad ops in the CW bands have now been with us quite a while. Now, listen to CW DX pile-ups and you will hear the same type of unruly operating practices once confined to the phone bands.
If those of us who operate CW and digimodes do as this posting suggests and operate in the phone bands, it will only tarnish our reputation and generate needless ill will.
73, N4KZ
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by N0AH on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I tend to go into the Men's bathroom when nature calls. I'm sure that I will keep to the same instinct with CW operating practices. I don't want to offend any phone ops-
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by N2RRA on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good Topic! Point is that we have to work toegether, and respect one another with proper amatuer radio operating practice.
Digital modes are a great addition to A.R. but being that digital use's up as much band width as SSB it probably wouldn't be in all of our best interest to expand that portion of the digital band. You mostly would here is just noise. If we had to pick which to get rid of or minimize it would certainly be digital. SSB and CW can be copied without other additional pieces of equipment, and pose's better useage than other modes.
Now I'm not sayin to get rid of digital or anything, but it's probably the reason for digital portion not being expanded. We all didn't get involved into A.R. because of the blips, squesh, ehhh, and blah. Dah-di-dah-di, dah-dah-di-dah, and SSB is what did it for all of us.
Anyway, despite the changes lets do the best we can on proper procedures and protocals.
73m
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W6TH on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
It is like I mentioned,"the New Breed". For the new breed, I will do as I see fit and meet my needs.
Should there be a friend in the phone portion of the band and I want to say hello and chat with him whether he stays on phone and I operate cw or we both work cw, I will continue to operate cw in the band I was told it is ok and legal to do, so new breed, take it and stowe it.
W6TH the non vanity call.
.:
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W8ZNX on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6TH tnx fer the post
i also sometimes run cw in the phone band
most often with old friends
or as a way to call somebody
at lower power with out
turning on the fone lash up
its also a way to call somebody
quick and easy
nothing like quick
his call my call k
enjoy running fone and cw
within the bounds of common sense
if freq is not in use
you have the right to use it
any mode that is allowed
in that part of the band
if a fone op comes along and does not
like the fact that i am using
cw in the phone band
that is their prob not mine
over the last few years cw ops have had to live
with phone contest stations taking over
most of 40 cw
with the new band plan for 75/80
Canadian fone stations
that hang out on 80 meter novice band
are talking
about moving down in to the bottom 100 kc
of 80 cw oh joy
Mac
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by URBANGORILLA on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB9RQZ, an anti-code hate monger draws first blood by posting:
"one of the posters refered to amateurs Code I have to wonder if the Morse Hounds ( i like CW and will happily see you in CW Hell) if they have heard of the Code at all seem to think it applies only to others
I have in varioused comented on the culture of the the Morse Hounds and find them greedly and "not able to work or play well with others" the lead poster of this thread seem to fit that"
It wasn't long before one from the anti-code camp came out to trash this thread. If you want to know what makes this guy tick, go to his website:
http://www.geocities.com//kb9rqz/
then click on 2 of his links:
general ranting blog:
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
and
a blog I enjoy reading:
http://cbdaze.blogspot.com/
'Nuff said.
73
UG
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by G0GQK on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am not a CW operator, but spend most of my time on PSK. I find that many of the digital users in Europe who use modes other than PSK are quite inconsiderate. They will just drop into a frequency and use their digital mode, whatever it might be, and take up the space of perhaps 7 or 8 PSK transmissions, and consequently "wipe out" some or perhaps most of the PSK contacts.
I mentioned this some time ago on one of the Yahoo digital pages, the responses were as you would expect, belligerent. And this was from US operators. So as far as these operators were concerned it was perfectly OK to do what I have outlined.
The problem is there there has been far too much growth with digital types of communication, the vast majority of operators use PSK31. Operators trying out the other modes find that there is almost no response to their CQ's but it doesn't stop them being a bloody nuisance to PSK 31 operators.
So not only are narrow frequency CW operators being squeezed out, so are PSK users. The same thing happened years ago when the roving Pactor mail boxes used to drop on Pactor operators "out of the blue" and they used to wipe out QSO's. It used to make me so angry that I gave up operating for quite some time.
For my peace of mind.
Mel G0GQK
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W5ESE on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In general, when I operate CW, I stick to the
CW subbands.
I think a case can be made, though, for QRP
operators who want to check into to SSB traffic
nets using QRP CW rigs.
When I travel, I often just take a small QRP
rig; an AT Sprint 3. It has a mode in which
you can widen up the IF passband to receive
voice signal, and the transmit offset is
automatically adjusted so an SSB operator will
hear your signal at the correct pitch.
Both the Elecraft KX-1 and KD1JV AT Sprint have
this "SSB <-> CW" crossmode capability. This
is a wonderful feature.
A few weeks ago, when I visiting family out of
town for a few days, and I checked into the
Texas Traffic Net (an SSB net) using my AT
Sprint 3 (using CW). They had traffic for the
town I was visiting, and I was the only check-in
from there. The station with the traffic read it
to me, and I replied using CW (luckily, he was
also an active CW traffic man and knew all the
appropriate prosigns). It worked very well.
But as a matter of routine, I operate CW in
the CW subbands.
73
Scott
W5ESE
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WN2A on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sure CW can co-exist with phone, just the same as it does with data.
1) We do this all the time during VHF contests. Can't make that grid-square with SSB? Switch to CW and nail that contact. Good intro for the NCT's.
2) Cross-mode in foreign phone bands. Lots of this
back as a Tech+.
3) Splatter too much from adjacent SB stations? A CW signal fits right in-between.
I just don't see any substantive cons to this concept.
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by N0AH on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB9RQZ - If you knew code, maybe you could understand what we are talking about-
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by AF9J on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very true. WN2A is quite right about that. I do a fair amount of VHF & UHF, SSB & CW. Above 6m, everybody hangs out around the callig freqs. It doesn't matter that 144.000 to 144.100 MHz is reserved for CW only. We all work off of the calling freq. on 144.200 MHz on 2m. It is an SSB & CW calling freq. The same holds for the SSB & CW calling freq. at 432.100 MHz. We all make room for each other.
Now before all of the pundits say "oh yeah but you don't have as much activity to deal with on those freqs.", I will state that during nights with decent tropo (and Aurora for that matter), I've heard them sound as busy as 20m. Also, in many cases there are cross mode contacts on VHF & UHF, in order to make the QSO. Especially if you're not running big power & big antennas. I've been a ham since the late 70s, and active since 1982. It never ceases to amaze me how something which is commonplace on VHF & UHF is looked upon with so much contempt on HF, by many hams. It's doable for SSB & CW to coexist on the same freqs. You just have to get over the "this is MY territory" mentality.
73,
Ellen - AF9J
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KA4HWX on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"CW being allowed by the rules and regulations of the FCC and in agreement of the ARRL should settle the discussion of and as to why cw is allowed in the phone bands, etc."
It is allowed by the FCC and that is all one needs to worry about. The quote states "and in agreement of the ARRL". Since when is the ARRL a government regulatory body?
It does not matter what the ARRL says or wants or believes. If anyone wants to operate CW in the phone bands they can and the ARRL has nothing to say about it.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KX8N on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"As it now stands from my point of view, one cannot be a ham operator unless he is a whiner or complainer, acting like a bunch of old, over the hill unwanted women living in a seniors retirement home. "
Must admit, you have a point.
Of course, whining about those with vanity calls kind of makes you fit the mold, though...
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Sure CW can co-exist with phone, just the same as it does with data."
But they don't.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by N3OX on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We all work off of the calling freq. on 144.200 MHz on 2m. It is an SSB & CW calling freq."
Yep, that's how I got Maine on 2m... crossmode contact.
CW testing is gonna go away. CW isn't. No one should really freak out about it.
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WR8D on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I've been away for a week and see nothing has changed on here at all. Evidently many of you never studied much at all to get your license, and forgot what ever it was that you actually did learn to make it to the ham bands. Look at any band chart. For those of you wondering what that is well, its a US amateur band plan. Now i can't make it any easier than this. There's a little thing on the side of all of them that's called a "key". This key will show you all our modes and where they're allowed. Sometimes the use of a mode is called an emission. I'm taking this approach because of some of the "moronic" comments above about using cw in the phone portions. My "amateur radio band plan" which the FCC set up for us to operate by says, cw-phone and image sharing the same portions of band space. If one can read one does'nt need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. This thread is just another code/nocode spew fest. Since i was a kid back in 81 i've used cw in the phone bands. I have friends all over the country and i'll sometimes slide on freq and give them a little cw over to them on ssb. I don't go looking for cw contacts in the phone bands but i do hear it quit often and it's perfectly legal. Just because many of you for what ever reason are to lazy or maybe just to damn stupid to learn cw, are you also so ignorant as to think if the requirement is done away with for a license, that it won't still be used. Does it make you feel inferior or what ever the hell your problems are, to know others love using cw and it's used worldwide at all hours. Oh lord, they're using it right now on 40meters. Oh man, those other guys in parts of the world not here stateside are talking on ssb right there at the bottom part of 40 meters. Hum, it says that's the 40 meter dx ssb and "cw" window. Wanta thrill, pull up next to one of those guys on the phone side and say hello to them from the cw side. They'll be glad to work you. My comments above are in no way directed at anyone with some medical problems or honest learning disabilities. Anyway a learning disability is an honest medical problem too. My comments are directed at you anticode people usually "hiding" behind a vanity call which you disgrace simply by you being the holder of it. If a child can hold our highest license class and pass 5wpm and a damn 800 pound gorilla learn sign language and actually hold a conversation in english with a caretaker the rest of you lower life forms should be at least able to do a little cw. I realize this is way to much to expect so you whiners just need to let it go. We'll always be on some cw portion of a band or among a bunch of our phone buddies laying a little cw on them. FCC makes the rules, not you nocode cb types. Some really nice hams up the thread honestly feel strong about just staying in the cw portions and thats just fine. If the rest of us want to fully use the privileges which we earned by getting from general to advance and then extra in the phone portions of the bands, i'd say you'll hear more cw qsos going on around the ssb guys. It's no big deal, perfectly legal, and the cw guys are easy to notch out. It's just the fact that you nocode cb types can't make it go away. Get over it, this is just a waste and you're making the divide in our ranks only get bigger by all the bitching you're doing. My two cents: John WR8D --... ...-- "that really pisses ya off too, don't it". hi hi
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KB9RQZ on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0AH no need to know Morse Code or much of anything else besides basic Phyc to understand what this discussion is about
It is about power and the willingness of a side that is losing ground and losing it once unchalelend postion in it's own world, to lash out
it can be guaranteed , by human Nature not Morse Code skill or lack of it that some are going to respond by lashing out at what they see as there foes
be they the Islamofacists or the ProCoders
If I did not value the ARS I would enjoy watching you guy pick each other apart, instead I call you what you are children that are afraid of change
that is why the NoCoders are wining BTW we understand what we are up aginst Know you enemey know yourself and Victory shal be yours" acident wisdom SunTzu the art of war, and that is what this is politics which is merely warfare concealed
I know my oppeonent I know how they think and what they beleive I have also noticed they do not know ME much at all
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by THERAGE on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ahhh, yes.....
Same BS, different thread. Much to do about nothing other than getting a few good ones in. No winners... no losers.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by N3OX on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB9RQZ, could you and Slow Code please stop posting in rec.radio.amateur.antenna?
When they finally do away with morse testing maybe you two yahoos can just go duke it out on 75m SSB instead. That'd be a lot less QRM for me.
73,
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If we have a problem with CW and SSB not having enough space to co-exists we need to reduce the amount of people coming into the hobby and stop promoting it.
If there is not enough to share and we can't get the FCC to give us more room then we must thin our ranks.
Anyone have any ideas on how to keep people from coming into the hobby?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W7ETA on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<it seems reasonable for CW operators to seek spectrum relief in the Voice and Image sub-bands>
Huh?
Spectrum relief?
Funny. My initial reaction was that it will be easier to make CW Qs since we won't have to hunt through as much spectrum now.
Well, except for 30 and 60 meters.
On the rare occasions I've heard USA CW in USA phone sub band, I've wondered what they were doing there, tuned in to find out, listened for a while, and moved on.
However. I must admit, that when I listed to the DX window on 75, I would ask non-DX to please move out of the window, especially during grey-line openings. But that was simply because that is where DX collects.
I can understand moving up the band to find an un-used frequency, but that would put you at the beginning of a phone band, not in the General portion. Besides, if you start calling CQ in the General sub band, who is going to answer you?
Off hand, I think you'd have more FUN, simply finding an empty spot in the CW only portion on any band. Sorta like it is now.
73
Bob
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KB9RQZ on December 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
to n3ox guy if I could control Slow code and his freind's Robeson (K4YZ) and Wisemen (AB8MQ) I would
I don't post except action of a forger (ab8mq love to spend hours creating hunderds of foreged post in my name in that other ham gruop even out of the way places Neworleans.general and rec.birds
In RRAP where i post intentionaly they post soemtime upward of 100 libel /smear posts a day you have my apolgoies that they crosspost em to the group you are fond of but trying to sort oout their crosspsotings would make already difficult task even harder
I truly CAN'T help although I wish I could
I respond since ifwhen I last tried ignoring them they posted the names of people whoose sole crime was bearing the same name as myself with phone numbers sometime tracking down the landord of these people and the statement that the target wwere child rapist, I could deal with the mail saying much the same about but somebody in nearby got hurt and was thrown out of their aprtment for "causing trouble" I decided I ahd to try and resisit these effort or allow myself to driven once again off the USENET altogether
when R&O come out and becomes effectibve so I will hghve my extra license I'll the cyber terrists win
till then Iapoloigize to any I may inconvence in taking a what I feel (rightly or wrongly ) is the only moral course open to me in decided NOT to yeild to a couple puck terrorsits
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sure, why not?
But after a while, I think you will get tired of the interference.
Most Phone operators will be surprised to hear you and will probably assume you will just go somewhere else.
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KX8N on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Anyone have any ideas on how to keep people from coming into the hobby? "
Yeah, send them here before they go test.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Off hand, I think you'd have more FUN, simply finding an empty spot in the CW only portion on any band. Sorta like it is now.
73
Bob"
Exactly, Bob, exactly. The CW ops who go up into the SSB portion to cause trouble "because we can" are just going to cause the CW portion of the band to be squeezed even more. It doesn't matter is you can legally do it, it matters that you are causing trouble.
In 30 years of operating (and I didn't own a mike the first 5 years of that), I have never, repeat never operated CW in the phone band. There is even less reason now, with all the animosity there.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I know my oppeonent I know how they think and what they beleive I have also noticed they do not know ME much at all"
I wouldn't be too sure of that, Mark. Either part.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WR8D on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Jim, i understand how you feel but i've never experianced any trouble and certainly no animosity. Most those guys can't even copy cw at all and pay no attention. We're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. You've got to admit though, the nocoders are wanting the mode to "go away", not just the requirement for it. They don't even want any of us using cw at all. For most of them it's the one thing that's kept them for years from getting a ham license. Myself i use all our modes from time to time. This is a wonderful hobby and i refuse to bend to the mindset that most of them have. If i want to do sstv or cw my license allows me to do just that. The Fcc makes the rules we go by not some cber on steriods that thinks he's a ham now. Cw has kept them off the bands on hf, even lowering it to 5wpm was to much for most of them and now they seem to hate any user of it. I enjoy cw just as much as i do ten meter fm or psk31 on twenty meters. It's just another mode i enjoy when i do amateur radio. Think about it. I get in here from time to time just to stand up to them for the rest of us. The fact that one knows cw will not make them a better ham. The fact i can do it in my head and talk to you on the phone at the same time does'nt make me better than anyone either. It's just the fact that so many are bitter due to the fact that a little mode has kept them from hf access for so long. Now they want to "get back" at the users of it. People just want to bitch is the bottom line. As for modes i'd rather be on cw anywhere than on phone sounding like a cber with an echo box inline with the mic, but that's just me. 73 pal, don't let them fire you up so much. They just want to get in these threads and bitch to get the rest of us bitching back at them. That's just the way the world is nowdays. John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You've got to admit though, the nocoders are wanting the mode to "go away", not just the requirement for it. They don't even want any of us using cw at all."
You are exactly right, Johnny. That is why I am strongly advising my fellow CW ops to stay out of "their" territory and not cause any more trouble.
Like you, I enjoy all modes and maybe will find more new ones to try. But I don't like all the hate towards those who operate one mode. Leave the others alone and enjoy the part you want, is what I am saying.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W6TH on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
KX8N on December 3, 2006
"Anyone have any ideas on how to keep people from coming into the hobby? "
Yeah, send them here before they go test.
...............................................
A better idea is to have tests taken with the FCC office and get rid of the VE testing. Also, raise the testing of cw to 13 wpm, that should do it.
W6TH a non vanity call and passed 13 wpm, class "B" and class "A" at a FCC office in 1938 and later with the 20 wpm at a FCC office.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by MACGUFFIN on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I find all of this bickering back and forth very amusing. Even better than "Must See TV". I quite literally laugh out load at some of this.
In five years people will wonder what all the fuss was about. Some newly minted Amateurs may even question your memory (or sanity) when you say in 2006 there was a Morse code knowledge requirement for the license they now hold. Much like I did in 2001 when I got my Technician. I had no idea that just two years before there were 3 different Morse code speed tests. I also had no idea that just ten years prior I would not have even been given a chance to take the written test I did until I had fist passed a Morse code proficiency test.
When Amateur radio comes up in conversation, and people ask about how to get a license, when I mention Morse code testing I get one of two responses. Either they laugh, or they ask what Morse code is. How do you respond to that? I'll be glad when the Morse code test is gone, if only so I don't find myself in such a situation again.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by AF9J on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good point John,
Like you, I use many modes (SSB, CW, PSK31, Feld Hell, etc.). IMHO it seems that those who are doing the most complaining about CW, seem to have this, "why would you ever want to do anything other than ragchew with a KW on SSB?" mentality. Hey people, we're all different, not everybody likes to do the same things. Dou know how boring life would be, if everybody was the same, and as a result,only liked the same things?
Somebody mentioned in a earlier post, about what can we do to filter out the idiots in ham radio - OK,here's one thing that will help (there is no complete solution to this problem). Crank up the difficulty level on the exams. Today's written is lame compared even to what they were when I took mine in the 70s, 80s & 90s, for my Novice, General, Advanced, and Extra. They say the were even harder in the 60s. Perhaps. Either way, crank up the technical knowledge requirement in the exams. This will act like a filter, even if the code requirement goes away. I'm sure those of you who took their Advanced years ago, can remember how rough it was (the Extra was in some ways easier - other than esoteric stuff, the Extra seemed to be more about the 20 WPM code test). From what I've heard, today's Extra is easier than the Advanced I took, and the General isn't much harder than the old Novice I took. Maybe that'll help get rid of all of those idiots I hear on 75, who do their amp tests. You've all heard them at one time or another - "how do read me with 800W?. OK how am I with 1100W? Ok, now 1300W." Ugh! Don't they understand the simple concept of 1 S-unit is about 6db, so (assuming you're using the same antenna system) you'd need 4 times more power to get an S-unit of improvement? They're wasting their time. It shows a lack of knowledge on their part, for what is supposed to be basic a concept. But then again, maybe it's an "I'm bigger than you" mentality. Big deal.
Ellen - AF9J
|
| |
|
Be gentlemen.
|
|
|
by IAMAHAM on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Be a gentleman an follow the band plans. Operating CW in the phone portion of the band is the sign of a LID and is not being courteous. Hams, do the right thing and keep CW in it's portion of the band. Leave the phone portion open for phone ops.
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KA9S on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello again. There has been some discussion here. I'm not sure I can positively contribute much as the topic has taken many directions. I feel like I should clarify the assumptions I have been working from.
No-Code hams outnumber Know-code hams. There is no point in debating the merits of either position. The war is over. No-Code International is a powerful force in the ham radio community and they are celebrating their global victories knocking down the roadblock Morse code posed on the way to ham radio.
Morse code is an art form that can be difficult to learn and difficult to become proficient and comfortable using. Times do change, as do societies. Our world no longer answers such challenges as learning the art of Morse code. I fully expect only the tiniest (effectively insignificant) number of new hams of any age group will voluntarily learn the Morse code in the years to come. I believe I am amongst the last generation of humans who will know and use Morse code.
I think it is inevitable that all Morse code requirements are going to be dropped by the FCC and I really don't care how soon it happens. Once I it does happen, I can see no reason to set aside frequencies for a mode of operation (CW) that is not required, not taught and destined to fade away. The No-Coders are not meek, but they are going to inherit the earth. The manifest destiny of ignorance and lack of skills will not be denied and I will not waste my time fighting the inevitable.
On the other hand, against the truest wishes of the No-Code crowd, I don't plan on parting this world for a few more decades. They do want their pound of flesh for revenge and retribution, but sorry fellas, it's not going to happen. I, and they, face the dilemma of where the surviving CW operators are going to practice their secret black art. Spectrum is finite (as is real estate) and a future with no set asides for CW is going to force the remaining CW operators to spin that VFO and park it somewhere else. Every band will be a phone band and every phone band is going to have CW activity.
It's in everyone's best interest if we learn how to get along. Side-by-side. Didn't the No-Code pundits think about the aftermath of eliminating CW sub-bands? Do they expect to gradually shrink the CW sub bands to 50 KHz, 25 KHz 5KHz? Why be silly? Why wait? Do they truly believe the FCC will ever totally abolish all CW operation, not only eliminating it as a licensing requirement but also making it an illegal mode of operation? Maybe that is what they secretly long for, but I don't think that will every happen.
So the legitimate question still on the table is, can CW and SSB coexist? Why not? Why wait? A group of CW rag chewing buddies and I are being bumped off of your usual frequency by the relocation of NTS traffic nets. The NTS nets moved down the band because of the shrinking of the CW sub-band. My knee-jerk reaction is, "I don't own the frequency" and I need to find a new spot to operate. I respect the service being offered by NTS and feel sorry for their upheaval. So were do I go? Why not the phone bands. Or more correctly, the phone,image,CW bands. It's bound to happen some day by the very efforts of the No-Code activists. So how do we make this happen? How do we make it happen now? The phone operators cannot behave as though they "own" the spectrum. Not if they are honorable people. You can't knock down the fence and then complain about the cows being in your front yard.
I wish I could calm the fears expressed by Jim "Exactly, Bob, exactly. The CW ops who go up into the SSB portion to cause trouble "because we can" are just going to cause the CW portion of the band to be squeezed even more. It doesn't matter is you can legally do it, it matters that you are causing trouble." Don't be afraid of the inevitable future Jim, the spectrum set aside for CW operation is already ear marked for extinction, adapt. I feel sorry for you if you intend to cower in the corner of whatever spectrum breadcrumb the victorious No-Coders dane to leave you. Stand tall and QSY. Don't think of this as loosing the CW bands. Think of it as opening your eyes to more spectrum in which to operate CW. Spectrum that was always there.
Jeff - KA9S
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W8JI on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Maybe we need a dose of the real world.
CW and wider modes were segmented like they are for solid engineering reasons. They are and will always be incompatable, as a mix of ANY wide and narrow mode are.
The reason is simple and explained at this link:
http://www.w8ji.com/mixing_wide_and_narrow_modes.htm
No matter what we do, phone and other wide emissions will always impact narrow bandwidth emissions more than the reverse.
With the dumbing down of our basic skills we need segmentation of modes by bandwidth more than ever. Segmentation should be by occupied bandwidth and not the emission type. The emission type (within bandwidth limits for an legal area) should be by bandplan.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The phone operators cannot behave as though they "own" the spectrum. "
But they do.....
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"With the dumbing down of our basic skills we need segmentation of modes by bandwidth more than ever. Segmentation should be by occupied bandwidth and not the emission type. The emission type (within bandwidth limits for an legal area) should be by bandplan.
73 Tom"
That's a recipe for disaster, Tom, and has already been rejected by the FCC.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Don't think of this as loosing the CW bands. Think of it as opening your eyes to more spectrum in which to operate CW."
Jeff, with the hatred for CW out there (NCI and ilk), it ain't gonna happen. What WILL happen if we intrude is that CW will be outlawed under pressure. Is THAT a proper goal?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W7ETA on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK.
So you don't like having to move your group.
How does contemplating moving to the General phone band make things better?
Besides, in the future we can send CW characters into a computer that generates/speaks each letter or character into our rig which then transmits a 1.8 kc ssb signal. The other person has a computer that converts the computer voice to CW characters that you hear.
End of problem. CW and SSB peacefully coexisting!
One could even turn the computer generated voice into Hi-Fi SSB!
If you really want to stage a protest against all of those people who don't like CW, just plug your mic in, and start calling CQ on the opposite sideband. Not a single requirement as to which side band we use, unless you are on 30 or 60. Heck, while you do that, make sure you use a nice boat anchor that is just warming up. :-)
73
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W7ETA on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The more I think about it, the more I like it. SSB Qs where we hear letters instead of words.
n a m e h r b o b b o b b o b u r r s t 5 7 9 h w ? BK
73
PS: eHam takes out the extra spaces between words
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
by W8JI on December 3, 2006
No matter what we do, phone and other wide emissions will always impact narrow bandwidth emissions more
than the reverse.
With the dumbing down of our basic skills we need segmentation of modes by bandwidth more than ever. Segmentation should be by occupied bandwidth and not the emission type. The emission type (within bandwidth limits for an legal area) should be by bandplan.
>>> Agreed, but given the "dumbing down factor" segmentation by bandwidth is a bit contradictory.
If we expect amateurs to maintain a certain bandwidth, expected technical competency will need to be redefined, as well as part 97 rules and exams.
As you know, it's difficult for some amateurs to properly connect and run an HF transceiver and a
linear amplifier - then throw in ALC for good measure, never mind insuring a certain bandwidth is not exceeded.
From current part 97 rules;
§ 97.307 Emission standards.
(a) No amateur station transmission
shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary
for the information rate and
emission type being transmitted, in accordance
with good amateur practice.
(b) Emissions resulting from modulation
must be confined to the band or
segment available to the control operator.
Emissions outside the necessary
bandwidth must not cause splatter or
keyclick interference to operations on
adjacent frequencies.
Pretty vague.....Obviously there's very little in the way of "precision" written into the rules which had to be by design.
As a suggestion, instead of promoting email by ham radio, the ARRL could help solve the problem by sinking cash into resources to promote technical competency - like they used to prior to about 1985 - as well as influencing manufacturers to produce some affordable instrumentation to make emissions monitoring a real possibility.
Until we get serious about the dumbing down issue and reach a consensus about a real improvement plan, we might as well be shoveling you-know-what against the tide.
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"As a suggestion, instead of promoting email by ham radio, the ARRL could help solve the problem by sinking cash into resources to promote technical competency - like they used to prior to about 1985 - as well as influencing manufacturers to produce some affordable instrumentation to make emissions monitoring a real possibility."
Excellent suggestion. I agree, but how do you get the ever-more-anti-technology types, who are coming in, to partake?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KA9S on December 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Depressed, I have myself to blame. I just read through Tom's (W8JI) web pages and he makes perfect sense. I was blissfully unaware of RM-11305. I thank him for telling the truth, dissimilar bandwidths and dissimilar modes are fundamentally incompatible.
I still feel that by weight of numbers, the SSB crowd will continue their advance. In the end, there can only be one. It's looking like SSB. Even advanced digital modes will fall to the mighty microphone, let alone my arcane but beloved Morse code.
I bow to the request to "not make waves". I won't operate CW in the phone bands. I guess I'll continue to pound brass while I still can, where I still can. It's all so depressing.
I guess the only bright spot is I don't have to talk to them. And I certainly won't be bothered by them talking to me, as by definition, they can't "talk" CW.
73 - Jeff
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KB1SF on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Besides the sometimes-boorish behavior we see on our bands, I believe a lot of the compatibility problems we are now facing in the Amateur Service in the United States is because the FCC is still largely regulating us as if there were only two modes of operation …CW and Phone.
That is, throughout most of the rest of the world, our frequencies in the Amateur Service are regulated by bandwidth, not by license class or operating mode. Only in the United States are our bands carved up into ever-smaller sub-bands (and sub-sub bands) based on the class of license we happen to hold and the operating mode we happen to be using.
And, in order to have access to more frequency space, a person must first pass an ever-more-irrelevant series of multiple-choice “achievement tests”. And, even then, many US Hams are still confined to small slivers of the CW or Phone HF spectrum. The FCC calls this foolishness "incentive licensing".
But, setting aside significant portions of spectrum for the exclusive use of so-called "higher class" licensees does nothing but cram more and more of those operators who are not so "anointed" into smaller and smaller slivers of otherwise empty spectrum. This approach leaves GOBS of HF useable spectrum virtually unoccupied.
What's more, because this whole stupid "incentive" concept is STILL largely based on a 1950s era regulatory model of the operating modes we Hams USED to use, there is now precious little room set aside to accommodate new operating modes as they come along.
Unless and until the FCC stops treating us all like a bunch of Boy Scouts, complete with the inane requirement to earn a specified number of "merit badges" before being allowed to progress on to the next "scout class" and more (still largely restricted) frequency and mode privileges, I believe large portions of our spectrum in the United States will continue to be lightly occupied while other portions will continue to be jammed. And that continued overcrowding will, in turn, continue to invite the inconsiderate, road-rage-like behavior on our bands that we have all now come to loathe.
I firmly believe there is plenty of spectrum space on our bands to accommodate everyone's particular "passion" as long as we don't all try to "do our thing" in the same place at the same time. The FCC could greatly assist us in that effort by finally ditching their stupid "incentive licensing" foolishness (and then getting out of the regulated sub-band business for the Amateur Service altogether) by simply regulating our bands by maximum bandwidth. Most of the rest of the countries in the world have been regulating their Hams by bandwidth for decades. And their collective skies have yet to fall.
We Hams are in the best collective position to decide how best (and when) to allocate (or re-allocate) our spectrum. We've been successfully doing so on the VHF and UHF bands for decades. It's now LONG past the time we were allowed to do so on our HF bands as well.
73,
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I consider myself a die-hard SSBer. CW has an important place in ham radio. But if arrl has its way, CW will be replaced by WiFi and RF e mail subbands.
Would it be so strange that SSB and CW afficianatos banded toghere to oppose arrl's dummed down "vision" of ham radio?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB1SF writes:
".....because this whole stupid "incentive" [license]concept...."
Insentive licensing works in aviation, motor vehicle licensing, accurial science, nursing, medicine, union trade training, and a host of other of important fields. It belongs in ham radio for the very same reasons.
++++++++
"Unless and until the FCC stops treating us all like a bunch of Boy Scouts, complete with the inane requirement to earn a specified number of "merit badges" before being allowed to progress on to the next "scout class" ...."
What is so wrong with having to EARN priveleges? Except in the socialist utopia of Cuba, that's how the rest of the world operates. Why should ham radio be different? And lay off the scouts....they are great!
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K1OU on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Jonathan,
Why don't you answer Keith's question in the QRZ thread about presenting your curriculum vitae regarding your law credentials? He asked you a week ago.....
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by PHINEAS on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If the FCC says the mode it is a legal mode with in a range of frequencies, then that is all tha matters. Look at 6 meters. When that band is open, people are using what ever mode they can, anywhere they can. Nothing that a narrow band filter will not fix.
If I in a CW QSO with one station and another station wants to come in and use voice, then they will just have to find another frequency to talk on. Also, by law, they have to pick a frequency that does nto interfere with my QSO in progress.
For those of you that dont know, CW as a mode can be used everywhere on any band except 60 meters.
When in doubt, call the FCC!
Phineas
K0KMA
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KB1SF on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jonathan (W9WHE) wrote: "Insentive licensing works in aviation, motor vehicle licensing, accurial science, nursing, medicine, union trade training, and a host of other of important fields. It belongs in ham radio for the very same reasons."
And, "What is so wrong with having to EARN priveleges? Except in the socialist utopia of Cuba, that's how the rest of the world operates. Why should ham radio be different? And lay off the scouts....they are great!"
-----------------------------------------
Once again, Jonathan, your ignorance is showing as it appears you have yet to learn how to use your spell checker. You've horribly misspelled "incentive", "actuarial" and "privileges".
And, I contend we have already EARNED the right to access to the Amateur Service just by the simple fact that we pay the salaries of those in the FCC who administer it with our tax dollars.
That is, the issue should NOT be whether applicants for access to the publicly owned (or, in your parlance, "socialist") Amateur Radio Service are somehow deemed "worthy enough" to have "earned" such access. Rather, the issue should be that IF such access is granted, is there reasonable assurance that applicants posses enough knowledge to keep themselves and their neighbors safe and to also prevent them from becoming a nuisance to others while operating their stations.
Furthermore, I have absolutely nothing against the Scouts. It's a fine, PRIVATE organization for young men and women learning how to be upstanding citizens. But, such a merit-badge-and-class-ranked "caste" approach has absolutely NO place in a publicly funded, government administered program like the Amateur Radio Service.
And, finally, as Jerry (K1OU) has noted, we are all still waiting for your legal curriculum vitae.
The silence is deafening.
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: More KB1SF nonsense
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB1SF writes:
"And, I contend we have already EARNED the right to access to the Amateur Service just by the simple fact that we pay the salaries of those in the FCC who administer it with our tax dollars"
Using KB1SF's "entitlement" reasoning, we have already earned a right to:
1) Fly a multi-engine jet;
2) practice nursing;
3) practice professional engineering; and
4) practice law.
All because "...we pay the salaries of those in the [regulatory office] who administer it with our tax dollars".
Damn.
And to think people are dumb enough to go to flight, nursing, engineering and law school and take the government tests! Damn! If only we were as smart as KB1SF, we would all know that because we pay the sallary of regulatory buracrats, we are "entitled" to what ever priveleges we want, right?
Nonsense. Sheer nonsense.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W7ETA on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Go forth with a bright heart OM.
It is sad to scan the Novice sub-bands, that were once teaming with ops, now silent. But, we now have 30 meters.
There are still people who like the art of CW. When ever I look at a straight key, I see telegraphers; bugs remind me of rail road telegraphers; some of my straight keys are WWII vintage. A glowing rig, trying to copy a faint CW signal--pure retro RUSH.
Dxpedetions will still run high speed CW pile-ups.
My first straight key was a hand-me down from my step-father--it was his when he was a child.
73
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: More KB1SF nonsense
|
|
|
by K1OU on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why don't you answer the question about your curriculum vitae, Perry Mason?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"As a suggestion, instead of promoting email by ham radio, the ARRL could help solve the problem by sinking cash into resources to promote technical competency - like they used to prior to about 1985 - as well as influencing manufacturers to produce some affordable instrumentation to make emissions monitoring a real possibility."
"Excellent suggestion. I agree, but how do you get the ever-more-anti-technology types, who are coming in, to partake?"
Jim;
Maybe it's a 3-4 step process;
1) Create the technical study material for exam preparation, but write it so as to target an electronics technician versus an RF Design Engineer with 20 years experience. The ARRL is very good at producing this type of material and have been doing so for many years, as are a few other sources.
2) Update amateur radio technical references like the ARRL Handbook, CD's etc. with best practices details, including instrumentation suggestions, popular used equipment and computer/software solutions.
3) In place of the CW element, add a Demonstrated Skills element to most or all of the exams. (I am in no way trying to ignite a Code/No Code debate as that discussion has no place here.) Being able to set up an HF transmitter and amplifier and properly adjust a speech processor, ALC, etc. are some examples for the test.
** Learning becomes a worthwhile requirement. A new ham would feel really good about what they learned and put it to immediate use after they pass.
4) Work with equipment manufacturers to consider building in simple RF spectrum monitoring functionality into HF rigs, with the ability to output data to a PC via USB, etc.. Now a days, every ham has a PC nearby.
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: More KB1SF nonsense
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"And, I contend we have already EARNED the right to access to the Amateur Service just by the simple fact that we pay the salaries of those in the FCC who administer it with our tax dollars."
No, sorry, that is NOT earning ANYTHING. That is simply paying the rent. No extra privileges earned, you have to earn those separately.
Completely bogus argument. By the same token, if paying taxes earned me anything, I want my aviation commericial, and CG sixpack licenses RIGHT NOW. (Ain't gonna happen!)
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Rather, the issue should be that IF such access is granted, is there reasonable assurance that applicants posses enough knowledge to keep themselves and their neighbors safe and to also prevent them from becoming a nuisance to others while operating their stations. "
You're defining the Novice license, Keith, which no longer exists (except as leftovers). I think it should be re-instated, but it is in no way a substitute for a real license.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This thread is NOT about the licensing structure, gentlemen, but about CW operating vs. SSB. I still maintain that each should stay within the recognized boundaries, as adjusted by FCC. It is obvious that the FCC wants CW confined to ever narrower spectrum space, so it behooves us to stay there.
We had about .060 MHz before this adjustment, so in the squeezed bands (especially 80m), it would seem to be prudent for all who wish to operate CW on 80m to go ahead and get their Extra licenses. I don't know how far the data folks will move down, but with almost half of the 80m CW already limited to Extras, you really should upgrade if you want to continue to operate. Many posters on here claim it is exceedingly easy to pass the Extra, so "have at it!!"
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"There are still people who like the art of CW. When ever I look at a straight key, I see telegraphers; bugs remind me of rail road telegraphers; some of my straight keys are WWII vintage. A glowing rig, trying to copy a faint CW signal--pure retro RUSH."
Enjoy it while you can. It will soon be just a memory.
"Dxpedetions will still run high speed CW pile-ups."
Not for much longer, as they will have nowhere to do it.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KB1SF on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE wrote: "And to think people are dumb enough to go to flight, nursing, engineering and law school and take the government tests! Damn! If only we were as smart as KB1SF, we would all know that because we pay the sallary of regulatory buracrats, we are "entitled" to what ever priveleges we want, right?
Nonsense. Sheer nonsense."
And K4JF wrote: "Completely bogus argument. By the same token, if paying taxes earned me anything, I want my aviation commericial, and CG sixpack licenses RIGHT NOW. (Ain't gonna happen!)"
---------------------------------------
My suggestion only becomes "nonsense" and/or a "bogus argument" if one fervently believes (as you two gentlemen apparently do) that operating frequency privileges still need to be "earned" by way of baseless "hazing rituals" and ever more meaningless "achievement tests" that measure little more than how well people can memorize and then regurgitate ever more irrelevant facts.
The FCC's current incentive licensing approach is an absolutely INVALID and clearly discriminatory way of measuring learning that is chock-full of meaningless barriers because it simply measures an applicant's (usually innate) ability to memorize and regurgitate such facts.
Now, certainly (and contrary to many posts here and elsewhere that accuse me of such), I am NOT advocating we dispense with all written examinations!
To the contrary, there still needs to be some government oversight to control access to
our Service. And there still needs to be some kind of mechanism to insure applicants
(particularly newcomers) have enough knowledge to keep themselves (and their
neighbors) safe while operating their Ham stations. The FCC also needs to have a reasonable assurance that such applicants know enough of the "rules of the road" for the specific privileges they will be using on the air so as to not make themselves a nuisance to others in their neighborhoods or on the Ham bands.
But, testing for anything beyond those basic assurances is simply regulatory overkill that does nothing but perpetuate the arrogant "lid filter" snobbery that still runs rampant in our Service.
That is, our FCC testing structure OUGHT to look more like a set of hands-on learner's
permits designed primarily to get people up and on the air and communicating (that is…learning) rather than a college-level degree program in RF engineering where people "earn" a series of "degrees" (spelled "operating privileges") based solely on their largely innate ability to memorize information…ANY information…. and then spit it all back out on a multiple-choice test. In fact, the current FCC regulated sub-band-and-license-class-based stupidity actually DISCOURAGES such hands-on learning to applicants until long after they've taken their "final exams" on the subject.
And, sadly, right now, its only severely mentally or physically handicapped people who can't pass such tests, even with an inordinate amount of "accommodation". This fact, in itself, makes the process of "earning" privileges by way of these so-called "tests" all but meaningless.
Unfortunately, in typical government bureaucratic fashion the FCC has been consistently
pushing rote examinations and ill-timed achievement tests that measure the
absolute wrong set of knowledges and skills…at absolutely the wrong points in the
teaching-learning process.
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Another doom and gloom insult bash thread. For cryin out loud, enjoy what you like to do on amateur radio and stop worrying about what others are doing! If you enjoy cw, then by all means pound brass till your fingers fall off. If your a ssb ragchewer, then talk till your jaw aches. Why all the whining and crying over nothing? Can ssb and cw coexist on the same frequency? Perhaps, but it wont be fun for either. Isnt this why HF rigs have that big knob in the center called a VFO?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB1SF writes:
"The FCC's current incentive licensing approach is an absolutely INVALID and clearly discriminatory way of measuring learning...."
Here we go again.
"Invalid" AND "discriminatory"?
Got any authority for your legal conclusion, Mr. Internet lawyer? Got any case-law? Got any statutory authority? Got ANYTHING other then your own naked, unsupportable opinion?
I'm afraid that there is nothing unlawfully discriminatory about insentive FCC licensing for hams, any more then there is anything discriminatory about FAA's insentive licensing for pilots. As for your naked conclusion that insentive licensing is "invalid", then why DO YOU bother to possess a license?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K1OU on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Speaking of internet lawyering, Jonathan, why don't you provide your curriculum vitae? Or were you disbarred?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KB1SF on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE wrote: "Here we go again.
"Invalid" AND "discriminatory"?
I'm afraid that there is nothing unlawfully discriminatory about insentive FCC licensing for hams, any more then there is anything discriminatory about FAA's insentive licensing for pilots. As for your naked conclusion that insentive licensing is "invalid", then why DO YOU bother to possess a license?"
Got any authority for your legal conclusion, Mr. Internet lawyer? Got any case-law? Got any statutory authority? Got ANYTHING other then your own naked, unsupportable opinion?
-------------------------
Yes, Jonathan, as a matter of fact, I do…
It's called the "Rehabilitation Act", and among other things, it specifically prohibits Federal Executive Agencies (of which the Federal Communications Commission is but one of many) from excluding persons with disabilities from obtaining the full benefits of federal programs as a result of their disability.
Specifically, Section 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act (which relates to nondiscrimination Under Federal Grants and Programs) reads as follows:
"No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 7(20), shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978. Copies of any proposed regulation shall be submitted to appropriate authorizing committees of Congress, and such regulations may take effect no earlier than the thirtieth day after the date on which such regulation is so submitted to such committees."
Unfortunately, the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have been steadily chipped away by Supreme Court rulings in recent years that have increasingly forced persons with disabilities to first prove they fall under the provisions of the ADA rather than focusing on the actual discrimination that they have received.
However, it seems to me that, using the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act, a good class action lawyer could now easily make a very strong case that the FCC's increasingly irrelevant and baseless incentive licensing system requirements (the Morse test in particular) unfairly and systemically, "Subject disabled persons to discrimination under…excludes their full participation in…and/or denies them the full benefits of" equal access to all that the Amateur Radio Service in the United States now offers.
And, speaking of lawyers…a while back you claimed to be one. At that time, and a number of times since, I and others have respectfully asked that you share your curriculum vitae as an attorney with us so as to back up your claim.
We're still waiting.
On the other hand, your "curriculum vitae" for spelling is painfully self-evident.
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K0RGR on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the whole Amateur Service needs to take a Valium. A few need a shot of Haldol.
I'm really excited. After many attempts to figure out a minor problem that's nagged me for ages, I finally have a working CW keyboard on the air again. I'm really looking forward to some nice QSO's. I've been using a keyer for a million years, but I find as I get older, it's harder to use it. Either the paddles or my hands are a lot stiffer than they were 40 years ago.
I've always operated CW in the CW bands, but I've never had a problem with somebody breaking into my SSB QSO in CW. If I were a 5 WPM guy, I might have a different opinion, though.
We would be much better off if we stopped worrying about nefarious plots to wipe out our favorite mode - whatever it may be.
If you want to worry about plots, there are plenty of other places...
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, before you start with the Rush Limbaugh style "What's wrong with our country," ad nausum shock jock Eham forum entertainment such as the usual bashing, you know... the socialist Canadian society, free health care, Republicans vs. Democrats, the liberals and ARRL conspiracy theories, do us all a favor and download this spell checker for your web browser:
http://www.iespell.com/
Keep the entertainment coming though. I must tell you your honorable Juris Doctor, that I tend to lean toward facts as they present themselves. It seems Keith has obviously done his homework on the subject even if you don't happen to agree with any of his statements.
I find it noteworthy at this point to indicate that facts tend to remain as facts regardless if you agree or disagree with them.
I suggest you better "lawyer up" so to speak by doing some serious research on the subject if your intention is to articulate with Keith on this subject any further. However, I have a feeling he might actually know something more about the subject than you might actually think even if you are a Lawyer.
So while Keith may not be an "internet lawyer" (or play one on Eham :), he can certainly convey himself and present detailed facts in a most intelligent manner about this and an array of many other interesting subjects. It is for that reason I respect his opinions even if I don't always completely agree with them.
I did learn the Queen's English (No, not version demonstrated at Queen's in NYC) and graduated at what you commonly refer to as the socialist educational system in Canada which served me well. I am not so sure if I would be saying the same thing about Chicago area law schools if recently exhibited spelling is any reflection of it's overall quality.
73
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by IAMAHAM on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
No need for sharing and coexisting. Just keep your stinking CW out of the phone bands!!!
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"college-level degree program in RF engineering "
You have GOT to be kidding, Keith! College level? There is nothing above high school level at the highest, more likely junior high. I learned far, far more physics in high school than was on even the Extra exam.
Methinks a dose of real-world is in order!
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB1SF, the act you cite does NOT support your strained position. If you are going to argue the law, you MUST read it. The FIRST rule of statutory construction is to give ALL of the words their Plain and ordinary meaning.
The very FIRST line of the Act you cite, states:
"No otherwise qualified individual with a disability .....shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be .... denied the benefits of.... any program or activity .... conducted by any Executive agency...."
No "qualified" individual is ever denied a ham license "soley" because of his disabillity. The only people that are denied a license are those that cannot demonstrate that they posses the requisite "qualifications" in the form of knowlege.
If you are deaf, you get visual code test.
If you are blind, you get the entire test audibly. But no matter what, you MUST demonstrate the "qualifications". Either you can demonstrate the knowlege or you can't. No "knowlege", no license.
If we were to accept KB1SF's so-called legal reasoning, then a quadriplegic, with no abillity to use his arms or legs, should be given a milti-engine jet license by FAA! A blind man must be given a pilot's license.
Sheer nonsence!
BOTTOM LINE: The FCC's insentive licensing program for hams is no more discriminatory then the FAA's insentive licensing for pilots. Under both systems, you can only get the license if you demonstrate the qualifications. Deal with it.
Sheesh!
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"BOTTOM LINE: The FCC's incentive licensing program for hams is no more discriminatory then the FAA's insentive licensing for pilots."
Actually, it is far LESS discriminatory, as all kinds of accomodations are made for handicaps. Not quite so true for FAA.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Actually, it is far LESS discriminatory, as all kinds of accomodations are made for handicaps."
Three handicaps that the FCC doesn't make accomodations for are:
FEAR- "I can't learn code"- Fear is all in the mind, and it will paralize you. The FCC has no business rewarding your fears by granting you a license.
STUBBORNNESS- "I don't want to learn code"-If you are that stubborn to stand on ceremony about what you feel is right or wrong, the FCC has no business rewarding your stubbornness by granting you a license.
LAZINESS- "I haven't got the time to learn code"- Translated to "I don't want to take the time to learn code". Once again, the FCC has no business rewarding your laziness by granting you a license.
BOTTOM LINE -- NO WORK, NO LICENSE! AMATEUR RADIO IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT!
The blind, the deaf and those with physical disabilities can pass a code test if given proper accommodations, and they do!
"No need for sharing and coexisting. Just keep your stinking CW out of the phone bands!!!"
IAMAHAM, you must be a no-code Technician who still shoots skip on the freeband. Which category do you fall into? FEAR, STUBBORNNESS or LAZINESS?
73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
The "Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BOTTOM LINE: The FCC's insentive licensing program for hams is no more discriminatory then the FAA's insentive licensing for pilots. Under both systems, you can only get the license if you demonstrate the qualifications.
-----
Hardly an equal comparison. (Didn't you fix that spell checker yet? - "Insentive")
It's obviously apparent that when your are the sole individual in control of 200 or so lives on board a passenger plane, it's probably a good idea to have someone who is mentally and physically qualified to control the wheel in order to navigate the plane safely. I suspect that's why there are certain physical and cognitive requirements in place when obtaining a pilot's license from the FAA.
Now a person holding a microphone in their hand rag chewing with their buddies on 40 meters is another story. For example can you say 200 people will be instantly killed if they fail to navigate a VFO dial correctly?
I rest my case your honor.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KD5PSH on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
"IAMAHAM" me thinks hides his call as he is a no-coder and no-much of anything else. Techs should not express themselves unless they move up to at least General
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KLEMM on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't have General privilage yet but from listening and being on the upper bands I realy don't think there will be problems. 99% of Hams are great people.
K7VIN Vinny
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"For example can you say 200 people will be instantly killed if they fail to navigate a VFO dial correctly? "
Actually, 200 people could be killed if a ham interfered with life-saving communications. Say Coast Guard, or Police or fire or.....
It IS a serious license, gentlemen.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"99% of Hams are great people. "
You are correct, Vinny. See you on HF!
73 de K4JF
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don't like the pilot analogy?
Here are a few more COMPLETELY LAWFUL insentive licensing programs for you internet lawyers to ponder:
1) Real estate. No lives haning in the balance.
2) Securities. No lives hanging in the balance.
3) Cosmetology. No lives hanging in the balance.
4) Ham radio, YOUR life hangs in the ballance with that 1.5 KW HF amplifier!
Look around. Insentive licensing is EVERYWHERE. Its lawful, logical, and reasonable. Deal with it.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K1OU on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Jonathan,
Why don't you provide your curriculum vitae for us? Or were you disbarred?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4JF asks:
"....can you say 200 people will be instantly killed if they fail to navigate a VFO dial correctly?".
Nope. I can't, but can YOU say that anyone will be killed if their real-estate agent, stock broker or cosmologist goofs up? Of course not. Whether someone might be killed is NOT the issue. The issue is whether insentive licensing is UNlawful. The clear answer is NO. Its NOT. Deal with it.
Just because you PERSONALLY do not like something, does not make it illegal. No matter what internet lawyers might say.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K1OU on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Jonathan,
Were you disbarred? You aren't answering! Hiding something in your closet?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My CV is for paying clients.
And if I were you, I would excercize EXTREME caution before using my name and the word disbarred.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K1OU on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Tell us, Jonathan. Are you really a lawyer, or were you disbarred?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K1OU on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I don't need a lawyer to infer that you are threatening me. I was merely asking, and you became defensive. It's not an open-ended question. I think as a so-called attorney, you would know what that is.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, 200 people could be killed if a ham interfered with life-saving communications. Say Coast Guard, or Police or fire or.....
---
Similarly, I could state that a rubber duck HT antenna could kill someone if used incorrectly by an untrained individual. Of course it can. A bar of soap can kill people for that matter. So can plastic freezer bags.
But what is the likelihood of that happening in 98.7% of all cases?
We are discussing the idea of disallowing people an amateur radio license based on the idea that they have a bonified disability that doesn't medically permit them to upgrade via the incentive CW learning route. This has nothing at all to do with lazy people who don't want to learn code as is often the misinterpreted case.
Not that I agree with the elimination of CW as a testing requirement for those that are able, but what happens to those that are "accommodated" and yet they don't pass? Are we turning them away because we are saying it's an absolute *MUST*? .... Why are we doing that?
If they did happen to keep CW as a requirement, I don't feel it's right to single out people with bonified disabilities from getting one... that's all.
I think Keith's point was valid.
Reiterating my fist point regarding the possible outcome scenario of a disabled person obtaining a upgraded ham ticket by waiving the CW requirement is not likely going to have any serious consequences that can be measured equally in comparison to the idea of an individual piloting a commercial airliner or insert your favorite similar comparison here.
Jonathon does bring up a valid point with respect to the idea of a person's safety while using and operating a kilowatt amp. I suppose that could have serious consequences to it's end user if done so incorrectly. However, I maintain that risk equally exists regardless if anyone has or has not passed any CW testing or not. I am not sure if I quite understand the point to making that statement.
Passing a CW test does not make an individual an expert in the area of electrical safety because it's just a CW test. However, electrical safety, radio interference and operating practices should remain as a large part of the written portion of the exam.
73
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K1OU on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Tell me Jonathan, since when does asking a question construe slander?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K1OU on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Your CV is reserved for your clients? You must have a ton of them because you spend so much time here! Or were you disbarred?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM writes:
"We are discussing the idea of disallowing people an amateur radio license based on the idea that they have a bonified disability that doesn't medically permit them to upgrade via the incentive CW learning route"
Charles, if anyone truly has a medical disabillity that prevents them from learning code, they can file a medical statement with FCC and apply for a waiver. But it is difficult to imagine a legitimate MEDICAL disabillity that precludes an applicant from learning code, but does preclude learning the other aspects of licensing requirements. While such a medical disabillity may exist, I bet it is EXCEEDINGLY rare. Most of the so-called "disabillity" around these days is called L-A-Z-Y-N-E-S-S.
But if you wanted to know, you could file an appropriately worded FOI request with FCC.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM writes:
"We are discussing the idea of disallowing people an amateur radio license based on the idea that they have a bonified disability that doesn't medically permit them to upgrade via the incentive CW learning route"
W9WHE-II writes:
"Charles, if anyone truly has a medical disabillity that prevents them from learning code, they can file a medical statement with FCC and apply for a waiver. But it is difficult to imagine a legitimate MEDICAL disabillity that precludes an applicant from learning code, but does preclude learning the other aspects of licensing requirements. While such a medical disabillity may exist, I bet it is EXCEEDINGLY rare. Most of the so-called "disabillity" around these days is called L-A-Z-Y-N-E-S-S."
I agree. Most so-called disability is LAZINESS. Have you seen some of the "disabled" people with disabled parking permits? Doctors are too free and easy to sign off on their applications for these permits. Have you ever seen one of them walking briskly after parking their cars in one of those disabled parking spots? It makes me madder than hell when I see someone with a cane, walker or wheelchair parking in a regular spot because some able-bodied person whose doctor did him a favor is hogging parking spots that are legitimately needeed by a truely disabled person. The same kind of abuse would take place to circumvent code testing.
Charles, please post 3 valid examples of a "bonified disability" precluding a code test. I'll bet you can't even come up with one. Anyone who would be too disabled to pass a 5WPM code exam would undoubtedly be too disabled to operate a radio.
73 from
DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
The "Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While such a medical disability may exist, I bet it is EXCEEDINGLY rare. Most of the so-called "disability" around these days is called L-A-Z-Y-N-E-S-S.
---------
Yes, I agree with that statement to a certain extent.
Not sure what the actual numbers are from a statistical standpoint but it may or may not be as rare as you indicate. I admit, I simply don't have the numbers in front of me to justify it one way or another. I am not sure if Keith does either. Perhaps the Handiham community can better address that question.
----------
But if you wanted to know, you could file an appropriately worded FOI request with FCC.
-----------
I suppose that is one option to consider however what's the point when considering that we will most likely see a related R&O in the upcoming future. It's a regrettable option as it seems to serve to erode our long standing tradition, but it's probably going to be a reality anyway.
73
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We are discussing the idea of disallowing people an amateur radio license based on the idea that they have a bonified disability "
No we aren't. Because it doesn't happen under the rules.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Anyone who would be too disabled to pass a 5WPM code exam would undoubtedly be too disabled to operate a radio.
73 from
DUALGATEMOSFET
------------------------
See that's the problem....
How do we accurately determine what constitutes "too disabled?"
Each situation has to be assessed on it's own merits and on an individual case by case basis because cognitive and communication problems that result from a traumatic brain injury vary from person to person. These problems depend on many factors which include an individual's personality, preinjury abilities, and the severity of the brain damage.
Head trauma injuries can affect anyone at any age. Males who are between 15 and 24 years of age have been more vulnerable because of their high-risk lifestyles. Young children and individuals over 75 years of age are also more susceptible to head injury. Falls around the home are the leading cause of injury for elderly people. The leading causes for adolescents and adults are automobile and motorcycle accidents.
Let's examine a bright and otherwise normal individual who has suffered a brain injury after an automobile accident for example. Amateur radio could provide that individual with a certain improvement in their quality of life.
In fact, they may appear quite normal and while they may be able to articulate and communicate very well, they may have not have the capacity to retain information.
Some cognitive impairments from brain injuries often include having problems concentrating for varying periods of time, having trouble organizing thoughts, and becoming easily confused or forgetful. Not highly unusual behavior considering that most of us may have these very same problems everyday. However, the problem with these individuals on the other hand is that is that the condition may be more permanent than most of us.
They may be limited in certain situations involving cognitive recall and memory retention but not necessarily their ability to operate a radio or to function normally otherwise in social situations.
73
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K1OU on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Jonathan,
Please answer my question about how being curious whether or not you have been disbarred equals slander.
Didn't think so.
Typical conservative. All blow, no go.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good points, Charles (KC8VWM). But it is a fact that adjustments can be made "on the fly" as to accomodations for just about any handicap under the rules. That is why the system as presently set up is patently non-discriminatory. Precisely because there are so many variables, and each case must be judged on its own merits and can be adjusted for the circumstances of each case.
All of which is totally away from the subject of this thread, which is the idea that CW and SSB can coexist on the same band segments. Therefore let us return to the subject, which is not licensing, and is not whether there should be CW or even questions on the exam.
The subject is CW and SSB on the same frequencies.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All of which is totally away from the subject of this thread, which is the idea that CW and SSB can coexist on the same band segments. Therefore let us return to the subject.
-----
Agreed.
73
|
| |
|
CW=3845kHz (with 3840-3850kHz Multi-Mode)
|
|
|
by KQ6XA on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CW CALLING FREQUENCY = 3845 kHz.
Proposed for the New 75meter Bandplan:
3840kHz - 3850kHz ALL MODES INCLUDING CROSS-MODE AND CW.
I agree 100% that CW can and should be used in all the "Phone" bands. In fact, many HF Portable and low power operators use CW to communicate with SSB stations. It makes good sense, and it works very well!
Many hams have a 75 meter antenna but not an 80 meter antenna. Starting a new trend for CW in the 75m band will increase CW activity, and increase fun!
Due to the recent FCC rules, I recently proposed a new CW/Cross-Mode/Multi-Mode area of the 75 meter band:
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Some cognitive impairments from brain injuries often include having problems concentrating for varying periods of time, having trouble organizing thoughts, and becoming easily confused or forgetful. Not highly unusual behavior considering that most of us may have these very same problems everyday. However, the problem with these individuals on the other hand is that is that the condition may be more permanent than most of us.
They may be limited in certain situations involving cognitive recall and memory retention but not necessarily their ability to operate a radio or to function normally otherwise in social situations."
Good point, Charles. This is getting interesting. Someone with cognitive impairments due to brain damage may be able to operate a radio, but can someone with the kinds of cognitive impairments that you cite in your example pass a written amateur exam? It would stand to reason that if someone can pass a written exam which requires cognitive recall and memory retention, said person should also be able to pass a code exam. We're talking about a mere 5WPM here, not 13 or 20, which is why the medical waivers were in place for the higher speed code exams, but not for the 5WPM exam.
If it can be proven that the part a person's brain was irreversibly damaged that precludes that person from memorizing 43 Morse characters but still enable that person to pass a written multiple choice exam on electronic theory, rules/regulations and operating procedure, then such a person should be exempt from the code exam. This determination would need to be made by a qualified neurologist after examining this person's MRI results and after putting the person through a vigorous physical and mental examination. Of course, the doctor would have to be completely impartial and be selected by an impartial third party, not the person's personal physician.
I'll give you another example of doctors doing their patients favors. Do you know how many people are exempted from jury duty by a doctor's letter that shouldn't be? Loads!
73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
The "Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By the way, my opinion on CW and SSB coexisting is that they can coexist due to the fact that hams are usually adept at operating in adverse conditions (QRM, QRN, QSB, etc.). On the other hand, why subject everyone on the bands to more adverse conditions than they have to be. The ideal scenario is to keep modes separate. I vehemently disagree with any bandplan by bandwidth proposals. Modes should be separated.
Disregarding any bandplans or any gentleman's agreements, the FCC does permit CW to be used on any amateur frequency except 60m (NTIA's decision). There is nothing wrong with 2 hams in an SSB QSO switching to CW as conditions begin to change and the signals begin to fade. There is also nothing wrong with someone answering an SSB CQ on CW if that person tried on phone and couldn't get through. An even more extreme situation is a ham requesting emergency assistance on phone and can't get through, such as on the Maritime Mobile Net on 14.3 MHz. Without realizing it, I just came up with another justification for keeping the code exam. If nobody on the Maritime Mobile Net knows Morse, what happens if someone at sea has an emergency and needs assistance and can't get through on phone, but tries using CW and nobody can understand the transmission?
73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
The "Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If someone is so impaired as to NOT be able to MEMORIZE code, how would they MEMORIZE the answers to the multiple-guess exam?
See my point?
Even if someone could demonstrate a brain impairment that JUST impaired their abillity to learn CW (Yea, right) then with adequate medical dopcumentation, they could apply for a waiver from FCC. See.....NO DISCRIMINATION!
FCC insentive licensing is no more discriminatory then is insentive licensing in Real Estate or Cosmology.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB1SF wrote:
It's called the "Rehabilitation Act", and among other things, it specifically prohibits Federal Executive Agencies (of which the Federal Communications Commission is but one of many) from excluding persons with disabilities from obtaining the full benefits of federal programs as a result of their disability."
Name one disability that simultaneously cannot be compensated for in testing that also does not make it impossible for that disabled individual to actually use amateur radio. Explain why no compensatory testing method is available and why that individual could operate an amateur radio with this disability.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM wrote:
"We are discussing the idea of disallowing people an amateur radio license based on the idea that they have a bonified disability that doesn't medically permit them to upgrade via the incentive CW learning route. This has nothing at all to do with lazy people who don't want to learn code as is often the misinterpreted case."
No such bonafide (get your spell checker fixed) disability exists! As I challenged Keith, I challenge you to present a disability that cannot be compensated for in testing that also does not prevent a person from actually using amateur radio. If a person is so disabled that they cannot pass the tests by any of the available compensatory testing methods then how can they actually operate a radio?
It is not discrimination if the disability is such that the person cannot possibly use the privleges granted by the license.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Never mind that KB1SF and others cannot provide an example of an ACTUAL, verifiable medical disabillity that ONLY prevents a person from learning code. In the minds of NCI and other no-code advocates, it might, could, mabey, possibly, somehwere, somehow, theoretically may possibly, in some way perhaps exist, we must just do away with all code!
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jonathan,
Keith's thesis is that the entire incentive licensing structure is somehow discriminatory. Of course he fails to support that claim with any concrete examples and occasionally trots out the old saw about CW testing keeping otherwise qualified individuals from obtaining HF privleges. He seems to not believe that the incentive licensing program is there in whole or part to support some of subparts of the Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service as listed in Part 97 and as affirmed by the FCC in various R&Os dating back to the original decision in the early 60s (IIRC) that recreated license classes with different privileges.
He talks of a Class Action Lawsuit under the ADA but I bet he would be hard pressed to indentify anyone that could actually be in the affected class. Even the example of the traumatic brain injured individual is an unrealistic stretch since one would have to assume that only their ability to learn CW and not the rules, regulations, safety considerations and electronics theory are affected by their injury. An extremely unlikely occurance, if even possible, since there is absolutely no requirement for aural testing as the only means.
However, CW testing is going away in whole or part because the ITU no longer requires it and in 1998 the FCC said as much when they lowered it to 5wpm as the minimum needed to meet ITU requirements. It remains to be seen if the test is retained for the Extra Class license.
73,
Mike
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA3KYY writes:
"He [KB1SF] talks of a Class Action Lawsuit under the ADA but I bet he would be hard pressed to indentify anyone that could actually be in the affected class"
True. So far, he has not identified any individual. Moreover, I can tell you, as a licensed & practicing attorney, the ABSENSE of legal merits to his arguments are the reason no calss-action suit has or likely ever would be brought!
"However, CW testing is going away in whole or part....."
You may be right, but that is not clear to me. If FCC planned to do that, why not do so in the most recent R/O? I don't know the answer. Only time will tell.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You may be right, but that is not clear to me. If FCC planned to do that, why not do so in the most recent R/O? I don't know the answer. Only time will tell."
I DO know the answer. The recent R&O was for the refarming petition, which was filed way before any of the code petitions. The FCC will get around to the code R&O in due time. Wouldn't it be a laugh if the code requirement is dropped only for new licensees as of the date of the R&O, while all pre-existing licensees before the R&O would still be required to take a code test to upgrade. It would be a wonderful payback for those who have had Tech licenses for years but refused to get off their duffs to upgrade. The FCC has already made it known that there will be no grandfathering. It would be a just reward for those who sat and waited for more than a decade for a freebie.
73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
The "Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WW9R on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Radios come with Microphones? So that is what that funning looking thing was...
If we want to keep our freq, then get on the air and operate...
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If a person is so disabled that they cannot pass the tests by any of the available compensatory testing methods then how can they actually operate a radio?
--------------
Well that's a very good question. For example some persons suffering from brain injuries cannot recite or recall sentences you told them 3 minutes ago, but yet they may be more than capable of assembling a complex puzzle with many pieces.
Perhaps, you can ask a licensed neurologist who specializes in brain trauma injuries that question.
As I said earlier, each situation is individually assessed by a qualified practitioner. Each case presents it's own set of unique symptoms, outcomes and set of limitations surrounding the injury.
There is no equal "across the board" or "apples to apples" comparative analysis involving individuals affected with brain injuries. You may not understand how a person cannot pass a morse code test but yet somehow still function otherwise quite normally in a multitude of other situations, but you see... that's apparently the nature of many brain injuries in many well documented cases.
I hope that answers your question.
73
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
144.200 is supposed to be SSB and 144.000 is supposed to be CW, but yet I have never heard any CW activity on 144.100 to this day.
What I do find many times over is many operators on VHF/UHF sharing call frequencies using both SSB and CW operation.
...and yet I have not experienced or encountered a quarrel developing over the situation. In fact, I have often joined them to say a quick hello, quick report and callsign exchange even though my CW isn't quite perfect.:)
I have always found CW op's to be most courteous anyways. I suppose if someone wanted to use the frequency using SSB to make a call it's would hardly be a problem. I think it's good to have them mingle around coexisting with the SSB op's on 2m SSB. It helps me listen to them so I can brush up on my CW skills more often.
73 de Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KB1SF on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA3KYY writes: "He [KB1SF] talks of a Class Action Lawsuit under the ADA but I bet he would be hard pressed to indentify anyone that could actually be in the affected class"
To which W9WHE responded: True. So far, he has not identified any individual. Moreover, I can tell you, as a licensed & practicing attorney, the ABSENSE of legal merits to his arguments are the reason no calss-action suit has or likely ever would be brought!”
------------------------------------
My, my…it appears I have stirred up quite a hornet’s nest here.
Actually, It’s quite refreshing to see that I now have all of you at least THINKING about the possibility that our current licensing structure is systemically discriminatory, even if some of you are doing your level best to refute that possibility. And, the more we discuss these issues in forums like these, the more chance someone, somewhere with deep enough pockets just might do more than talk about it on an Internet bulletin board.
I think it is also important to remember that, just because someone hasn’t yet brought a lawsuit against the Federal Government for its discriminatory incentive licensing system for the Amateur Service DOESN’T also mean that such litigation is completely beyond the realm of possibility.
Indeed, a group of blind people just recently filed a lawsuit against the US Treasury Department (under the same Rehabilitation Act that I mentioned) citing the fact that all our US paper currency looks and feels the same, thereby making it all but impossible for sight impaired persons to differentiate between, for example, a $10 bill and a $50 bill. To my knowledge, such a Federal lawsuit had never been filed before, either.
Folks, all I have been suggesting here is that class action lawyers COULD make such a case against the FCC on ADA or the Rehabilitation Act (or any other of a whole host of Federal anti-discrimination law) grounds. And a few (granted not a lot) of other others posting here (as well as on QRZ.com) have agreed with me on that notion. Some others have even shared my surprise that it hasn't happened already. On the other hand, whether anyone with enough $$$, time and effort actually DOES so (and wins) is quite another matter.
But, regardless, I believe the FCC’s words and actions in recent years clearly support an overall strategy to gradually dismantle their incentive licensing foolishness in the Amateur Service. And, it appears they are already making good progress toward that goal.
To wit: Paring the license structure from five license classes down to three, dropping higher speed Morse tests, moving toward multiple-choice exams based on pre-published question pools, and now, asking us to "show cause" why they shouldn't drop Morse testing altogether. Rumblings about regulating our Service by bandwidth rather than operating mode are, in my humble opinion, merely a pre-cursor to the FCC eventually dropping their license-class-and-operating-mode, sub-band-based, regulatory overkill altogether.
The bottom line here is, ADA or no ADA, the handwriting is CLEARLY on the wall that we are headed for a far more streamlined and far less systemically discriminatory licensing structure in the Amateur Service in the United States in the future. Whether those changes are put in place to deter, or are the result of, a class action lawsuit against the FCC on ADA or other Federal anti-discriminatory legal grounds remains to be seen.
But, people, the die has already LONG since been cast. Incentive Licensing as we once knew it is TOAST. I suggest we might now want to start getting used to that fact.
Oh….and Jonathan…we already know you have a spelling problem. But we’re all still waiting for proof of your “licensed and practicing attorney” claim. The silence just keeps getting louder and louder.
73,
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KG6WLS on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And what does all this legal babbling have to do with CW and SSB Coexisting?
I'm QSY'ing to my radio room to work someone "wireless".
73
Mike
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Someone with cognitive impairments due to brain damage may be able to operate a radio, but can someone with the kinds of cognitive impairments that you cite in your example pass a written amateur exam? It would stand to reason that if someone can pass a written exam which requires cognitive recall and memory retention, said person should also be able to pass a code exam.
--------
Yes that would "stand to reason" in the minds of "normal individuals" without injuries affecting certain areas of their brain.
For example, it stands to reason that if you should listen to music playing on your car radio, then you should have no issue at all to drive your car to Boston and playing a complex musical instrument with the philharmonic orchestra.
This is what it is like for individuals with brain injuries. They may be able to drive the car.. They can tune the radio in their car, they can listen to music.. but they don't necessarily have the cognitive controlled capability in their brain to play in the Boston philharmonic orchestra.
Nor can I play in the philharmonic orchestra for that matter. Of course this is only an demonstrated example associating a normal persons limitations with what you and I can relate to in everyday terms and understanding.
The situation with individuals with brain injuries may be that they can memorize and write the written test because it requires a different area of the brain to function to achieve that particular goal.
Learning code on the other hand requires one to become a "musician" if you will. This requires another area of the brain to function to achieve that particular goal.
it is well known that understanding music, language and motor skill are all associated with different areas of the human brain. For example, motor skills are a physical function, music is an emotional function, language communication skills is neither function.
While one area of a persons brain may function quite normally, another one may not. In order to learn and understand Morse code all these areas of the brain have to effectively orchestrate and communicate with one another. For example, the tactile responses from a persons hand to your brain, the ear has to communicate to your brain, the emotional (musical) part of the brain has to be able to communicate with the language skill area of your brain and so on.
It's really a rather complex communication network occurring inside a persons head.
If any one of these paths of communication in the brain are impaired, or cognitively dysfunctional in any way, then a person cannot make the required connection to make certain things happen.
This is similar to the idea that you can't communicate without a feed line going from your radio to your antenna. You may have the required transmitter and the required antenna and it stands to reason that you should be able to communicate with that equipment, but without any RF going through a missing feedline.... You see the point?
This is why "it stands to reason" or "it just makes sense that..." thoughts are just simply not applicable and why they are of no value in assessing individuals who have suffered brain injuries.
73
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by MACGUFFIN on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Autism.
Someone was looking for a neurological disorder that would prevent a person from passing a Morse code test but would still be able to pass a written test and be an effective radio operator.
A common symptom of Autism is speech and auditory disorders. Some Autism induced speech disorders will be so severe as to effectively render one mute. While they can hear and respond to sound they may not be able to make out words or patterns.
Such a person would still be able to read, write, type and otherwise communicate intelligently by text or sign language.
However this does not help the case of ending Morse code testing because of a disability. The rules state one must understand Morse code to be granted certain operating privileges under Amateur radio. The ADA states that the examiners must make accommodations, it does not grant the power to create waivers.
Read the ADA, as it appears many commenting on this have not.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by MACGUFFIN on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> By the way, my opinion on CW and SSB coexisting is
> that they can coexist due to the fact that hams are
> usually adept at operating in adverse conditions
> (QRM, QRN, QSB, etc.). On the other hand, why subject
> everyone on the bands to more adverse conditions than
> they have to be. The ideal scenario is to keep modes
> separate. I vehemently disagree with any bandplan by
> bandwidth proposals. Modes should be separated.
>
> Disregarding any bandplans or any gentleman's
> agreements, the FCC does permit CW to be used on any
> amateur frequency except 60m (NTIA's decision). There
> is nothing wrong with 2 hams in an SSB QSO switching to
> CW as conditions begin to change and the signals begin
> to fade. There is also nothing wrong with someone
> answering an SSB CQ on CW if that person tried on phone
> and couldn't get through. An even more extreme
>situation is a ham requesting emergency assistance on
>phone and can't get through, such as on the Maritime
> Mobile Net on 14.3 MHz. Without realizing it, I just
> came up with another justification for keeping the
> code exam. If nobody on the Maritime Mobile Net knows
> Morse, what happens if someone at sea has an emergency
> and needs assistance and can't get through on phone,
> but tries using CW and nobody can understand the
> transmission?
>
> 73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
> aka
> The "Epitaxial One"
No, you did not think of a new justification for keeping Morse code testing. It was proposed to the FCC already and denied.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
However this does not help the case of ending Morse code testing because of a disability.
--------
This is not about ending morse code because of a disability. It is about "access" to a service because of a discrimitory practice.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"And what does all this legal babbling have to do with CW and SSB Coexisting?"
Absolutely nothing, Michael. The rant to destroy Amateur licensing is invading threads that have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Incentive licensing is not going away, there will NOT be a 10 question safety test and a free license. There is good solid reasoning behind encouraging improvement in the art and science of radio.
As for CW and SSB coexisting, ain't gonna happen either. There is just too much anti-CW sentiment out there. If anyone tries it, there will be volumes of complaints to the FCC and the small CW bands will be gone.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by MACGUFFIN on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> However this does not help the case of ending Morse
>> code testing because of a disability.
>>
> --------
> This is not about ending morse code because of a
> disability. It is about "access" to a service because
> of a discrimitory practice.
All tests discriminate. That is why we have tests. The word "discriminate" can mean "to distinguish", "to use good judgement", or even "expose differences". One purpose for a test for a license is to distinguish those that understand the rules that the person will be operating under from those that do not understand those rules.
You wish to use the definition of "play favorites" for the word "discriminate". The Morse code test for an Amateur license does not play favorites any more than a vision test does for a driver license. The rules say you need to pass a Morse code test to get a certain Amateur license, just like the rules say you need to pass a vision test to drive a car.
What you need to do is argue the applicability of the rule. Don't bring the ADA into this, it just confuses the matter. One can argue that one must pass a vision test to drive a car since a person with impaired vision would be a hazard on the road. The Morse code test does not pass that logic, that is why it must go.
Bringing up "discrimination" and "disabilities" is an empty threat. The FCC addressed this. They allowed accommodations for passing the test, and that is as far as they are bound to go under the ADA. Saying the ADA applies beyond that sets a very bad precedent and the FCC will not go that far.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You wish to use the definition of "play favorites" for the word "discriminate".
------------
You assume because I "said that" I am "doing that" and your wrong. I didn't start that perception. Keith did.
Please try to keep things in its proper perspective.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
3845kHz NEW CW CALLING FREQUENCY
|
|
|
by KQ6XA on December 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
3845kHz NEW CW CALLING FREQUENCY
3845kHz NEW CW CALLING FREQUENCY
3845kHz NEW CW CALLING FREQUENCY
|
| |
|
RE: 3845kHz NEW CW CALLING FREQUENCY
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"3845kHz NEW CW CALLING FREQUENCY "
Don't you mean 3545?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on December 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB1SF writes:
"......just because someone hasn’t yet brought a lawsuit against the Federal Government...... for its ....incentive licensing system......DOESN’T also mean that such litigation is completely beyond the realm of possibility"
My yes. Let's sue everybody, everywhere for everything. Forget about legal and factual merits. If you sue enough people, often enough, in enough places, you might just win the legal lotto!
Ever wonder WHY insurance costs so much? Its the cost of defending bogus litigation. Moreover, one might want to consider Federal Rule of Civil Proceedure 11(b)(2), which reads:
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(c) Sanctions.
If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.
That's right. YOU can be sanctioned for bringing a meritless lawsuit (or defense). Keep that in mind.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on December 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Keith (KB1SF),
You have commented numerous times about how you think the incentive licensing structure is somehow discriminatory to persons with a disabilty but fail to provide an example! Remember, the ADA only requires compensatory testing methods, it does not require waiver of the tests themselves. If the individual is so disabled they cannot pass the tests by any means then they should only be allowed to operate in a type certified service and not the amateur service. Whether or not they will ever utilize all the priveleges afforded the amateur service is not relavent.
In order to receive an amateur radio license there are certain things an individual must know. This derives from the International Radio Regulations established by the ITU and becomes US Law by treaty ratification. The IRR are somewhat vague as to what must be tested, leaving the details up to each country. Most countries of the world have incentive licensing in some form or another, including Canada. The details vary from country to country but include both power and frequency limitations for the entry levels.
As far as I know, the amateur radio service is unique world wide in not requiring type acceptance or certification of the equipment used. We are the only service permitted to design, build and operate our equipment without needing inspection or certification of our equipment. As such, the knowlege to be tested includes the minimal information needed to ensure that such equipment operates in accordance with the specifications of the amateur service. Individuals wishing to operate in this service must be able to demonstate that knowlege by passing the appropriate tests even if they will never exercise that privelege.
These tests are not in any way, shape or form discriminatory nor is the incentive licensing program. The recent changes and future changes to the US licensing structure have nothing at all to do with "discrimination" against persons with disabilities.
To bring this back on topic:
CW has coexisted in the same spectrum as phone since the beginning of phone operations and will continue to do so into the indefinite future so long as everyone treats each other with courtesy and respect.
73,
Mike WA3KYY
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on December 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4JF wrote:
"As for CW and SSB coexisting, ain't gonna happen either. There is just too much anti-CW sentiment out there. If anyone tries it, there will be volumes of complaints to the FCC and the small CW bands will be gone."
Under what basis would they file a complaint? Complaining that CW is operating "out of their allocated spectrum" would only be valid on 60M. By regulation, CW transimissions are permitted on all frequencies except 60M. In fact, they likely could not outlaw CW without making the simple act of tuning up on the air illegal. A signal sent for the purposes of adjusting your antenna tuner or finals is usually A1A, the same mode as CW. It would also make automated beacons, repeater IDs, etc illegal, a very unlikely occurance.
I doubt the rest of the world would go along so you would still have all that DX CW activity to contend with.
73,
Mike WA3KYY
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on December 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
McGuffin wrote:
"A common symptom of Autism is speech and auditory disorders. Some Autism induced speech disorders will be so severe as to effectively render one mute. While they can hear and respond to sound they may not be able to make out words or patterns."
Can they memorize the dot and dash patterns that make up the letters? Can they decode these patterns by flashing light or by feel of a long or short vibration? Can they write out the dot and dash sequence on paper obtained by light or feel then take their time to translate each dot and dash pattern into a letter from the pattern written on the paper?
These are all permitted accomodations that can be used for Element 1 testing. If none of these methods work, I have a hard time believing they can learn the material to pass the written elements.
73,
Mike WA3KYY
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K1OU on December 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Taking notes about how to do that, Jonathan? You should.
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on December 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So much for this article......totally obliterated with off topic arguments and rants, some questioning another's status in their line of work.
One guy sucks everyone in to some incentive licensing rant and now everyone can't wait for the article to scroll to the bottom of the list.
....The pure "sport" of argument and upholding ones ego seems to hold more importance than the issues at hand.
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Under what basis would they file a complaint?"
Interference can be claimed under ANY mode.
"By regulation, CW transimissions are permitted on all frequencies except 60M."
By regulation, CW exams are required. That does not stop the constant complaints about them.
"In fact, they likely could not outlaw CW without making the simple act of tuning up on the air illegal."
Sure they could. How about "A continuous carrier for tuning purposes is permitted."
"I doubt the rest of the world would go along so you would still have all that DX CW activity to contend with."
Obviously, the complainers could care less about DX. They are all about "ragchewing with my buddy down the road."
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by MACGUFFIN on December 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> McGuffin wrote:
>
> "A common symptom of Autism is speech and auditory
> disorders. Some Autism induced speech disorders will
> be so severe as to effectively render one mute. While
> they can hear and respond to sound they may not be
> able to make out words or patterns."
>
> Can they memorize the dot and dash patterns that make
> up the letters? Can they decode these patterns by
> flashing light or by feel of a long or short
> vibration? Can they write out the dot and dash
> sequence on paper obtained by light or feel then take
> their time to translate each dot and dash pattern
> into a letter from the pattern written on the paper?
>
> These are all permitted accomodations that can be
> used for Element 1 testing. If none of these methods
> work, I have a hard time believing they can learn the
> material to pass the written elements.
>
> 73,
> Mike WA3KYY
If someone has an impaired sense of time then how would one be able to distinguish a short tone from a long tone?
I'm not a physician, nurse, medic, or psychologist. I'm just passing on what I read. One of the things I read was of an Autistic child that passed all of the Amateur radio written tests with flying colors but could not understand Morse code. The Amateur radio operator father that mentioned this did not make note of any speech difficulties.
You may have a hard time believing a person can pass the written tests but not the Morse code, I do not. You are welcome to your opinion, as are those that wrote the papers on Autism. I suggest you read some, like I did. If you can find this website I imagine that you can find Google and Wikipedia.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WR8D on December 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Charles do you remember the code waivers? That ended morse testing because of a disability. They took their little paper to their family doctor and said, doc i can't hear this or it makes me nervous to try to study this stuff. If you'll sign this paper for me i will be able to "steal" this amateur license i've been wanting for so long, but was just to lazy to study for. It was a part of some membership drive the league came up with several years ago and got the fcc to go along with. I had a hardcore freebanding chickenbander come to my last arrl ve session. He handed us his code waiver and we were forced to sign off on it. He passed his written tests and walked out an extra. I dropped my membership at that point and "dared" them to ever send me another mailing from arrl. You guys curious about what he did with his extra license. A few years later he became a ve himself, got a few of his cb buddies in and now they have their own team. Imagine that. Since we're all so off topic anyway i though i'd just throw this in. Our ranks are a mess. There's no way to keep them truely honest in a test session anymore. Now as for the topic, Cw and SSB will always coexist as they always have. Only those idiots that think they can make the "mode" actually go away are the ones thinking otherwise. Merry Christmas all. John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on December 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4JF wrote:
"Interference can be claimed under ANY mode."
Of course but that provides no basis for outlawing a particular mode and not what you implied by your comments. Your implication was that any sending of CW in the phone sections would elicit complaints to the FCC. Interference is not a reason to outlaw a mode. It it were, we should probablh outlaw SSB since more interference is caused by that mode than any other.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WR8D on December 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Guys, please let me repeat and let it "sink in" this time.
The requirement of cw for a license will probably be done away with like it has in so many other parts of the world. The mode will not be done away with. Look at the mode of AM. Back in the late 50's ssb came along and many of those old AM operators are alive and well and "still" operating their favorite mode of AM today. There's not to many of them left but yes i still catch one on the air from time to time. For me there's nothing that splatters and qrms worse than an AM signal or several in the middle of the ssb phone bands. This crap you're all doing is just way to childish. The cw operator and the use of the mode will never go away. Sorry it's been such a thorn in so many sides. Like i said earlier though, if a six year old child can hold our highest license then shame on your lazy asses for not taking the time to learn it. Simple as that, now all your bitching in the world will never make the "mode" or the use of it go away. Get a life, if you don't like amateur radio keep your sorry asses on cb where most of you belong. You've all bitched and complained about cw for so long now you can't even get on the bands and have a nice day of operating. You stick out like a sore thumb and have destroyed the brotherhood we all once knew. I'm just 52 and look forward to many more years of just telling you lower life forms how it is. Try some of these other modes we have to use too unless you're just to dumb to be able to type at a good pace. They even have a program now that you can train your computer to type for you as you speak. Good lord it's being layed at your feet, do something with it. Stop this childish behavior, think before you speak and remember the world is using us for comic relief. Most of them are way smarter than us yanks and the proof is right here on eham. Sometimes i just gotta get in here and say it in plain ole hillbilly english. 73 John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Your implication was that any sending of CW in the phone sections would elicit complaints to the FCC."
Actually, no, I didn't infer it. I plainly stated it. This WILL happen. Now the "reasoning" behind the complaints is foreign to those of us who think for a living, but it will, in fact, happen.
I view operating CW in the portions of the bands allocated to SSB to be deliberate antagonism. Yes, it is legal. Yes, it has been done in the past. But it has NOT been done under the circumstances of today, under the hatred of CW that has festered in the ham community.
Yes, they are wrong to object. Yes, they WILL object, and they have shown their organizational skills already. It is a dangerous idea to deliberately stir up trouble against those who have so successfully stirred up trouble. They are better at it, gentlemen, than we are.
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KA9S on December 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
5 KHz - Yup - that's the table scrap that is envisioned for the casual CW rag chewer on 80m CW. Check out the band plan the displaced CW nets have for the new 80m:
http://4rnc4.homestead.com/80mCWNETMATRIX.html
You will notice that they start at 3530 and go all the way up to 3600. If you want to have a casual QSO at night without being bumped off frequency by one of the many nets, you have to operate below 3530. If you don't have an extra class license, you have to operate above 3525. What does that leave you? Do you still think I'm being silly considering operating in the (phone/image/cw) sub-band?
By the way, where are the 80m CW contests supposed to take place?
- Jeff
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KB1SF on December 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chris (WA1RNE) wrote: "So much for this article...totally obliterated with off topic arguments and rants, some questioning another's status in their line of work.
One guy sucks everyone in to some incentive licensing rant and now everyone can't wait for the article to scroll to the bottom of the list."
----------------------------------------------
Sorry, Chris, but the issue of CW and SSB coexisting simply cannot be intelligently discussed without ALSO discussing the FCC's obsession with regulating (or, rather, NO LONGER regulating) separate sub-bands for each mode.
And, as the most likely "one guy" you are referring to, I'd like to think that all of us now have a far better understanding of just how complex the issue of coexistence on our bands really is, as well as how it is about to become even MORE complex once the FCC finally drops their incentive licensing foolishness (along with the regulated license-class-and-mode-based sub-bands that have been an integral part of their "boy scout" approach to regulating us for the last 50 years).
That is, once the FCC starts regulating us simply by bandwidth (rather than by license class and emission mode) the whole "coexistence" issue will be ours, alone, to solve. We would do well to start deciding NOW how best to implement voluntary band planning on our HF bands rather than waiting until AFTER the FCC tosses the whole issue back in our laps and chaos reigns supreme.
73,
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KB9RQZ on December 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Charles, if anyone truly has a medical disabillity that prevents them from learning code, they can file a medical statement with FCC and apply for a waiver. But it is difficult to imagine a legitimate MEDICAL disabillity that precludes an applicant from learning code, but does preclude learning the other aspects of licensing requirements. While such a medical disabillity may exist, I bet it is EXCEEDINGLY rare. Most of the so-called "disabillity" around these days is called L-A-Z-Y-N-E-S-S.
o one is called Dyslexia which come is various degrees w9whe
wether you care to admit it or not
and I can even operate MorseCode on the air now. this is proven by the fact you can et all can read me now Indeed given the fact we did not always require code to be decoded by ear means we could allowed me a waiver or accomdation of using my choosen aid (pc to take the test in the first place)
and no their is no waiver Id have used if their were
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"..the issue of CW and SSB coexisting simply cannot be intelligently discussed without ALSO discussing the FCC's obsession with regulating (or, rather, NO LONGER regulating) separate sub-bands for each mode..."
Oh, but it can. Because the issue is NOT the FCC's regulation, it is how to handle ourselves after the FCC has done the regulating. The changes have been made. We will not get the FCC to reverse it's stance. There is no point in discussing that. It's a done deed.
Therefore we need to discuss the fact that some people are insisting that they will go up into the SSB portion of the band while operating CW. If that had been the intent of the FCC, then they would not have moved the SSB portion down, IMO. The FCC has obviously decided that the CW operations should be confined to a smaller portion of the band. Otherwise, why the change?
The CW issue has brought some very angry people into the forefront. That cannot be denied. CW ops are doing themselves no favors by going into the SSB portions of the bands and making things worse.
We still do not know how much spectrum space will be left for CW, because we do not know at this time how far the data ops are going to move down when squeezed by SSB. But that is where CW ops must concentrate. We have lost a lot, no matter what mode outside of SSB. Don't make it worse. That's all I am saying.
And the question (which even is a question to only a tiny minority of hams) of incentive licensing is totally immaterial to this particular discussion. The objections to IL should have died off a long time ago anyhow.
|
| |
|
RE: 3845kHz NEW 75METER CW CALLING FREQUENCY
|
|
|
by KQ6XA on December 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
3845kHz NEW CW 75 METER CALLING FREQUENCY
3840-3850kHz ALL Modes, Cross-Mode, SSB-to-CW, SSTV, Digital Voice, Images, CW-to-CW, etc. etc.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KQ6XA on December 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I regularly use CW in the USA "phone/image" HF subbands. So do many of the other HF portable operators I communicate with almost daily.
We often have SSB talking with CW and vice-versa. Sometimes it is SSB to SSB, sometimes it is CW to CW, sometimes it is SSB to CW. We stay on the same frequency. We don't QSY just to work CW. That would be silly, and counterproductive for communications.
In the past 5 years, I've only heard one complaint about our CW, and that "operator" refused to identify with his callsign!
We also work USB below 10MHz all the time.
All those mode wars are unecessary. Use what works.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KB1SF on December 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I recently wrote: "..the issue of CW and SSB coexisting simply cannot be intelligently discussed without ALSO discussing the FCC's obsession with regulating (or, rather, NO LONGER regulating) separate sub-bands for each mode..."
To which Jim (K4JF) replied: "Oh, but it can. Because the issue is NOT the FCC's regulation, it is how to handle ourselves after the FCC has done the regulating. The changes have been made. We will not get the FCC to reverse it's stance. There is no point in discussing that. It's a done deed.
And the question (which even is a question to only a tiny minority of hams) of incentive licensing is totally immaterial to this particular discussion. The objections to IL should have died off a long time ago anyhow."
---------------------------------
Once again, Jim, you have missed the point. I'm talking about a TOTAL removal of regulated sub-bands in the Amateur Service, not just moving a few of them around a little.
What the FCC recently did to re-allocate tiny portions of our bands is simply the tip of the iceberg. There is much, much more "deregulation" to follow. And incentive licensing IS very much a part of this issue, because they'll have to ditch it FIRST before they can start regulating us by bandwidth rather than license class and operating mode. Otherwise, they'll no longer have any "rewards" (license-and-mode-based sub-bands) to pass out as "incentives" for us to "upgrade"
What are "we" going to do when the FCC eventually comes to us and says, "OK, folks…from now on, you can do anything you want, anywhere in the HF bands, just as long as you adhere to the ITU recommended bandwidths (6 KHz on most HF bands except 1 KHz on 30 Meters, and 20-30 KHz on 10 Meters). We really don't care what you put where, just as long as you adhere to these broad standards. Period".
That day is coming, and it may well be here sooner than any of us think.
Many other countries around the world (like Canada) are ALREADY regulating their Amateur Services this way. They've turned the whole issue of "what goes where" back to the Hams themselves. And for a whole lot of reasons (many of which I've outlined previously) my hunch is that the cash-strapped (not to mention litigation averse) FCC is now desperately looking for a way…ANY way…to quickly follow suit.
So, again, I ask the question…. what will we (you) do when the FCC drops incentive licensing entirely...along with all the regulated, license-class-and-mode-based sub-band foolishness that goes along with it?
73,
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"So, again, I ask the question…. what will we (you) do when the FCC drops incentive licensing entirely..."
Me? I'll probably go sailing. What would be the point in staying in chaos?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W7FRS on December 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After December 15th, the first thing I'm going to do is drop down on the new frequencies and operate SSB. I hope I find some cw operators there as well. I only have one request. Could you go slow enough so I can copy you? I am only half kidding. Some of you guys are amazing. I can't do that. I will never be able to do that. At least I can recognize what mode it is.
By gentlemens agreement, some of us don't start drinking until after 6pm. Or it could be pressure from our husbands or wives; I don't know. Yes, I know; some of us don't drink at all. I've wondered if that is one of the differences with 80 meters. It's a night time band. It's a night time place to hang out with their local buddies. It really doesn't bother me that much. I don't have to sit there and listen. For a qso, I need to find my own frequency, anyway. Probably not; disregard this paragraph.
I think there will come a day where all modes are allowed in (almost) all portions of the bands, except 60 meters. The FCC will say that you can have your band plans if you want; but there will be no enforcement. This is not original with me.
Good morning, gentlemen
John W7FRS
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by N0IU on December 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W7FRS wrote, "By gentlemens agreement, some of us don't start drinking until after 6pm."
Its always after 6pm somewhere!
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on December 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Every thread on eHam turns into a debate about Element 1 testing. It never fails. Why don't we choose our own elements. Make it like a Chinese menu - 2 elements from column A and 2 elements from column B. Those who want to take a code test can take one, and those who don't want to take it can choose to be tested in something else. Maybe in lieu of the code test, we can choose to be tested in music trivia. If you don't like music trivia, there is TV and movie trivia. Here's an easy question. How many states were there when we first gained our independence? Answer correctly and you get a General class license. Name those states and you get an Extra. Name the capitals of those states and you become an FCC Commissioner. Take to the high seas and you can transmit anywhere from DC to daylight. You even get to pick your own callsign with no vanity fee.
Now that I've introduced this bit of levity, you can all go back to arguing about Element 1 again. What came first? The waiver or the disability? Who cares!
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W7FRS on December 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0IU > 'Its always after 6pm somewhere!'
I've never thought of that:)
AG4RQ > 'Every thread on eHam turns into a debate about Element 1 testing.'
I hope you don't think I am debating that. If they want to include Chinese menu in testing, I don't care; or don't, I don't care. Like you, I'll be grandfathered.
Happy holidays, everyone!
John signing
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"How many states were there when we first gained our independence?"
13
When we first became a nation?
11
:o)
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"W7FRS wrote, "By gentlemens agreement, some of us don't start drinking until after 6pm."
Its always after 6pm somewhere! ""
We use the traditional 5:00 o'clock here in the Southland. "It's 5:00 o'clock somewhere!!"
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KA9FLX on December 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Amen AI2IA!
Such a simple statement that we all seem to forget now and then.
Common courtesy goes a long way.
It is also part of the basic amateur operating code!
Is it really all that hard to do!
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by IAMAHAM on December 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Keep your CW out of the Phone portion of the band and we won't have any problems. We won, you lost. Over and out.
HardyHarHarHar
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Over and out."
Contradictory. Which is it? "Over" or "out"?
|
| |
|
RE: CW and Phone
|
|
|
by WA3VJB on December 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Regarding the comment of John WR8D, who said on here (in part):
"Look at the mode of AM. Back in the late 50's ssb came along and many of those old AM operators are alive and well and "still" operating their favorite mode of AM today. There's not to many of them left but yes i still catch one on the air from time to time. For me there's nothing that splatters and qrms worse than an AM signal or several in the middle of the ssb phone bands."
Now you did it. You started out nice, noting the continued popularity of AM all on its own merit, without any federal mandate as with the Morse code licensing test element. I would say that the prospects for CW in the future will also be strong, as people who enjoy the mode continue to pursue it.
But you threw a clinker in there when you made the sweeping statement that an AM signal splatters and QRMs. Most of the thousands of AMers I have hung out with on 160, 75, 40 and 10 meters take great care to establish and maintain a high level of technical quality in their signals.
Those who are careless will hear quickly from those of us who don't expect dirty signals. And since AM is a specialty mode, I have to say the number of stations that you may find splattering are far outnumbered by those with misadjusted transceivers on SSB, especially during contests.
I hope you will look more charitably on those of us who enjoy such specialties, be it CW or AM, and that you will respect the spot on the dial these modes and activities may have found when you come across them.
Paul/VJB
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Contradictory. Which is it? "Over" or "out"?
------
Yes I suppose we could have an endless debate about that too!
However, everone knows the correct usage depends on the correct time somewhere.
73 & Happy Holidays.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Contradictory. Which is it? "Over" or "out"?
------
Yes I suppose we could have an endless debate about that too!"
Nope. No debate possible. Each has a specific meaning. The meanings are exclusive.
"Over"= I am finished with this particular transmission and am inviting you to transmit, after which I will answer.
"Out" = This is my last transmission, I will not communicate any more, this series of transmissions is finished.
Or in CW:
"Over" = K __
"Out" = ....SK
|
| |
|
RE: CW and Phone
|
|
|
by WR8D on December 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Now Paul, you know i'm well aware of how much i splatter when i've got the 30K-2 at 100%. Remember me down here in the hills now?? hi hi.
Happy Holidays, John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by KC5CQD on December 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Keep your CW out of the Phone portion of the band and we won't have any problems. We won, you lost. Over and out.
HardyHarHarHar"
Well there you have it folks! This person epitomizes the modern no-coder. With such a shortage of gray matter, how could we expect them to learn morse code? It's obviously well beyond the scope and capabilities of the above-quoted moron.
With this kind of representation on their behalf, we can rest assured that our chosen mode of operation(CW) is quite safe.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"With this kind of representation on their behalf, we can rest assured that our chosen mode of operation(CW) is quite safe."
EXCEPT for the fact that, with that attitude, they still won.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by IAMAHAM on December 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The stupids at ARRL are trying to take away our hard earned phone space:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/12/11/100/?nc=1
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WR8D on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Ref KC5CQD: Hey Clyde, if you'd studied for your ham exam and not had one of your chickenband pals that's now on a ve team give you the answers to what ever license you hold, you'd understand just how stupid you little comment here is. Using you now as an example your type is what's wrong with amateur radio today. It's people like you causing this split in our ranks. Your type stick out like a sore thumb as the rest of the world looks on and wonders. John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by WR8D on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Jess i'm sorry i didn't mean to direct my comment at you. It's address to the cber IAMAHAM. I had some qrm here in the shack and didn't pay attention to who i was addressing. I've ask the eham team to address what we see here and so far they don't care. I don't care to subscribe either untill they come up with a secure ham logon. I listen to these dumbasses every day on the radio in my heavy equiptment. They act like little kids. They want to find something that pisses people off then pick on it. If we had audio here on this site this weirdo would be playing music and all that to qrm like they do on his band. He's a cber with no business at all here on this site among us. His only intentions are to troll and start fights among us. Hey wannna be "ham" IAMAHAM at least be man enough to put your name here next to your childish spew. John Blackburn WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"...trying to take away our hard earned phone space.."
WHAT "hard earned"? Nothing "earned" there!!
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting - NOT
|
|
|
by W5HTW on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The premise of this thread is that CW and SSB can and should co-exist in the same band, i.e., 75 meters. I think, though, we are seeing a precursor of something dramatically happening, waiting in the wings.
First, the no code General/Extra ticket. We all know that is coming, and coming very soon.
Secondly, we already have, due to the Restructuring of 1999, a very large group of amateurs who cannot copy Morse code at any feasible speed.
Third we have a large group of amateurs, and no one knows just how large, who, thanks to the "Buddy System" of the early VE days, bought or traded for their licenses, and never took any kind of Morse test.
The result? What will be the point of allowing CW in the phone bands? We have always done it because all hams, including those in the phone bands, could copy CW. That is no longer true and hasn't been for nearly two decades.
It was permitted because if a station really just "had to get through", emergency or not, he could switch to CW and the phone guy could copy him.
Since that is no longer true, I find it highly likely CW will be banned from phone frequencies. This Omnibus is a first step to confine CW, legally, to the bottom of the bands, and it will NOT be permitted "just anywhere." Why? Well, to what value? Who can copy it? Permitting it will serve no purpose.
The next steps to visit ham radio will be the no code HF license. I would think, either attached to that R&O, or in one closely following on its heels, will be an outright prohibition of CW in the new phone bands.
I think, too, non-voice digial modes will be prohibited in the phone bands. The trend is to create new opportunities for the currently licensed NCTs and the future licensed NCGs and NCEs, to have plenty of space for their SSB.
The arrival of the NCT license in 1991 created, in effect, two distinctly different "ham radios." I believe it is about to happen again, with the "CW Ham" confined to the bottom 25 khz or so, and the "SSB Ham" with all above. Just how the digital modes will be handled remains to be seen, but I think the lower part of the "SSB Ham" band will permit digital, at least for a while.
Somewhere along the line, CW will again be compressed, and the space vacated will be given to the digital group. But by and large, the biggest percentage of hams simply want to push the button and yak. And that is what they will be permitted to do, and other modes will be prohibited.
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting - NOT
|
|
|
by KB1SF on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed (W5HTW) wrote: "The next steps to visit ham radio will be the no code HF license. I would think, either attached to that R&O, or in one closely following on its heels, will be an outright prohibition of CW in the new phone bands."
------------------------
I agree with you in the first part of your statement…mandatory Morse testing IS headed for the dustbin of Ham Radio history. However, as regards your statement that there will be an "outright prohibition of CW in the new phone bands", I now have to ask you just who (or what) will do the "prohibiting"?
If you believe it will be the FCC, think again. EVERY ruling they have passed down as of late points to LESS regulation of our bands, not more. Right now, CW is allowed anywhere on our bands, and, from a regulatory standpoint, I don't believe that precept is about to change anytime soon.
If anything (and as it's already being done in the rest of the world) the FCC is clearly on track to eventually regulate all our Ham bands by bandwidth, NOT by license class and operating mode.
The only "prohibition" of CW in the phone (or other) sub-bands might eventually come from our own voluntary band planning that will inevitably result once the FCC stops regulating us like a bunch of boy scouts that can't be trusted and bear watching at all times.
73,
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting - NOT
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"...will be an outright prohibition of CW in the new phone bands."
There should be an outlaw of phone in the CW band. Particularly 3.500 - 3.635Mc
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting - NOT
|
|
|
by MACGUFFIN on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> There should be an outlaw of phone in the CW band.
> Particularly 3.500 - 3.635Mc
You are going to have to take it higher than the FCC or the ARRL. The IARU Region 2 band plan allows phone from 3.525 to the top of the band.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting - NOT
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB1SF wrote:
"The only "prohibition" of CW in the phone (or other) sub-bands might eventually come from our own voluntary band planning that will inevitably result once the FCC stops regulating us like a bunch of boy scouts that can't be trusted and bear watching at all times."
Actually Keith, the Boy Scouts require less watching and regulating than a sub-set of amateurs do. They try much harder to follow the Oath and Law than do amateurs the Amateur Code.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting - NOT
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Actually, the Boy Scouts require less watching and regulating than a sub-set of amateurs do. They try much harder to follow the Oath and Law than do amateurs the Amateur Code."
Correct! Thank you, couldn't have said it better myself.
|
| |
|
Medical Waivers
|
|
|
by K9DI on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm sorry gentlemen, but your suggestion of using the Medical Waiver is specious as it no longer exists. The medical waiver was done away with along with the 13 and 20 wpm exam elements. The medical waiver was only for the 13 and 20 wpm exam elements, not the 5 wpm test. The applicant still had to pass the 5wpm exam element before applying for the medical waiver.
Sincerely and Respectfully Yours,
Wayne K9DI
|
| |
|
Medical Waivers (non-existent)
|
|
|
by K9DI on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm sorry gentlemen, but your suggestion of using the Medical Waiver is specious as it no longer exists. The medical waiver was done away with along with the 13 and 20 wpm exam elements. The medical waiver was only for the 13 and 20 wpm exam elements, not the 5 wpm test. The applicant still had to pass the 5wpm exam element before applying for the medical waiver.
Sincerely and Respectfully Yours,
Wayne K9DI
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W4NTI on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree for the most part. However there are times, such as when the SSB signal drops into the mud, that going over to CW is about all there is. I will do that as needed. Which is not all that often.
With the new band allocations the MAJOR problem I see is the RTTY/Digital crowd dropping on top of CW signals. Been happening a lot on 40 since the "CW" part of the band was opened up to RTTY, etc. I expect the same to happen on the other bands.
I also expect a lot of hard feelings and out right bad manners. Just like what goes on with the phone bands.
Reason? No mutual respect, consideration and general poor operating habits. Cure? Danged if I know.
Dan/W4NTI
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W8LV on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Certainly well written and shows that you are a considerate operator!
Also, this should be said to the SSB guys: when you hear a CW signal 'up' in yer neck of the woods-please don't let it annoy you, as If you hear us , just remember we are taking up a narrow space, so you still have more room than if he were SSB....
When I use SSB (as I sometimes do!)and the QSB and QRN get heavy in the middle of a QSO, I often switch to CW and hey that works! So please, don't forget that During a ragchew you can switch back and forth according to conditions.
Finally, getting into this hobby, and learning and meeting all of the PEOPLE in it has always meant more to me than any particular mode, the ham community 'itself' has always made all the difference to me, and I'll bet I'm not the only one who thinks this way...
73 DE BILL W8LV
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W4NTI on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Pray tell what is it you think you have won? By helping to destroy a MAJOR TRADITION of Amateur Radio you have accomplished what exactly?
Dan/W4NTI
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K3ROJ on December 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What does it matter now that CW was dropped by the FCC? It is only a matter of a few years that amateur radio will be gone anyway and in the meantime if I want to enjoy what little time we do have, I will use CW wherever on the bands I wish since it is not illegal to do so. Most amateurs will now boycott the ARRL and it makes me feel sick to think about all the years I belonged to them. By the year 2010 you will hear, "breaker breaker, anyone on fourteen point two fifty? Come on back".
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by W4NTI on December 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Excuse me but the ARRL WANTED to retain Morse Testing. If you would care to check their petition, they expressly stated to AT LEAST maintain the Morse Testing for the Amateur Extra.
Furthermore the ARRL has been tradionally the major SUPPORTER of KEEPING MORSE CODE TESTING over the last several decades. And has ONLY RECENTLY went along with the flow of the anti cw wave and modified their stand.
Try and get your facts correct and not confuse these poor folks any more than they already are.
Dan/W4NTI
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Also, this should be said to the SSB guys: when you hear a CW signal 'up' in yer neck of the woods-please don't let it annoy you,"
If you think THAT is gonna happen, I have some oceanfront property in Tennessee I'd like to sell you! :o)
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by IAMAHAM on December 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You better not be using that old CW crap in the Phone portions of the band. You got your little portion of the band. You stay down there, like the little retard kid who is hidden in the basement you don't want anyone to see.
|
| |
|
RE: CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Somebody above has really, really got it bass-ackwards!!!
|
| |
|
CW and SSB Coexisting
|
|
|
by K4DZR on December 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Seems reasonable to me. Sharing the phone band with cw during the recent 160 meter contest worked ok. My operating is mostly casual these days (with a cw contest once in a while) so I'll probably do my cw rag chewing in the cw portion of the band but won't hesitate to move up if need be. You phone only guys, if you here a cw signal on the "phone band" just think of it as BPL noise and notch it out. (you won't be able to understand what they are saying anyway)
Cheer up you young guys, most of us old cw hams will be silent keys in a few years!
On that happy note: Merry Christmas to all!
Jerry (hamming for 50 years as of Feb 07)
P.S. Can't wait until the next cw contest to see what happens
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
USA 5 MHz Emcomm, Not Ragchew DX Contests
Warnings from Icom
Other Recent Articles
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
New Communication Exhibit Helps Kids Get the Message:
Transmission of Images - No Internet, Satellite, Cable, or Cells Needed!
Deltona Youth Loves to Ham It Up on the Radio:
|
