eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

ARRL Band Plan

Bill Clarke (W2BLC) on September 15, 2004
View comments about this article!

The ARRL has recently proposed the following new band plan (quoted from an ARRL email):

"FCC rules now permit RTTY and data emissions throughout the HF CW subbands, although informal agreements typically keep RTTY and data signals out of those parts of the CW band generally used for CW. The ARRL's petition proposes to limit bandwidth in the CW subbands to 200 Hz, which also will accommodate data modes such as PSK31.

In addition, the League's proposal would limit bandwidth in the existing "RTTY/data subbands" to either 500 Hz or 3 kHz, with phone emissions specifically prohibited in certain subbands where 3 kHz would be permitted. Under the proposal, these would include 3650-3725, 7100-7125, 14,100-14,150 and 21,150-21,200 kHz.

"The reason for this is to encourage the development of higher-speed data communications in these subbands by preventing them from becoming de facto 'expanded phone bands.'" Sumner explained."

FCC rules now permit RTTY and data emissions throughout the HF CW subbands, although informal agreements typically keep RTTY and data signals out of those parts of the CW band generally used for CW. The ARRL's petition proposes to limit bandwidth in the CW subbands to 200 Hz, which also will accommodate data modes such as PSK-31.

In addition, the League's proposal would limit bandwidth in the existing "RTTY/data subbands" to either 500 Hz or 3 kHz, with phone emissions specifically prohibited in certain subbands where 3 kHz would be permitted. Under the proposal, these would include 3650-3725, 7100-7125, 14,100-14,150 and 21,150-21,200 kHz.

"The reason for this is to encourage the development of higher-speed data communications in these subbands by preventing them from becoming de facto 'expanded phone bands.'" Sumner explained. (end quote)

Unless I have missed the point completely, all I see here is a request for more FCC regulation -- for the purpose of implementing the ARRL's desires.

The only thing I see wrong with our current band plans is the need for expanded phone bands -- specifically on 75 meters. The unused space is there -- just check the amount of use between 3500 and 3700 MHz during the prime operating hours of 7 to 10 PM. All too often I will count less than ten (10) CW and/or digital QSOs in progress at any one time. This is real under utilization.

If you have feelings about the ARRL proposed band plan, you should contact ARRL HQ and your local section managers and tell them. Also, watch for the FCC Comments Period -- you might wish to make your feelings known there also.

Bill Clarke W2BLC

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by KL7IPV on September 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I may be wrong, but the last I saw last week was the ARRL has shelved this plan because of so much flak.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KG4PFO on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
One thing at a time......What about the Lic. restructure !!!
Get on with it !
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by W4TYU on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Another ox being gored.
the ole man
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KT0DD on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Yeah, We need license re-structuring to bring back the 20 wpm code for the Extra and 13wpm code for the General tests. :) 73.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by W3ZD on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with KT0DD
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KI4CYB on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
ohh no, I see another code -vs- no code thread...











p.s. code needs to stay!
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by WIRELESS on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Another waste of time proposal to justify the ARRL's useless existence.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by N4ZOU on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Yes, it's all about the money! SCS needs to sell lots of Pactor modems and add on licenses for Pactor III. Without Pactor III and internet forwarding all the Sail boat hams can't run there business via the Winlink system on amateur bands.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by WS4Y on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Yep we all need to let the ARRL know what a bad
plan this is. If this were to become so we would
have wideband digital modes on the phone bands.
This could be worse than BPL. And they only folks
that could decode the transmissions would be those
that paid the license fee for use of that particular
digital code. New digital modes cooked up could be
used prior to publication for secure communications.
Think about what this could lead to. Homeland security
are you listening? I hope KL7IPV is right and the
ARRL backs off on this. I also agree with KT0DD.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KC8Y on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with KT0DD about the code speed requirements...The Extra should remain at 20-wpm (at least 15-wpm)

Ken, KC8Y
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by W4PA on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
>>If this were to become so we would have wideband digital modes on the phone bands<<

An alternate view - a large part of what amateur radio is supposed to be about is encouraging experimentation and advancing the state of the art in communications technology.

If we're concerned about wideband voice modes and spectrum efficiency, it is high time DSB AM is dropped as a legitimate amateur mode. It's been 50 years now since it was eclipsed by SSB; time to let it go.

If it (DSB AM at 9 kHz BW, as proposed by the ARRL) is retained, and digital voice modes at 4 to 6 kHz BW - which are cutting edge technology - are prohibited what sense does that make?

Scott Robbins
W4PA
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KC8VWM on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I heard this proposal from an ARRL district rep. recently during a hamfest.

My initial though was "Why the change?"

While I am open to the idea of change, I didn't feel that the information was presented clearly.

Your article states:

"The League's proposal would limit bandwidth in the existing "RTTY/data subbands" to either 500 Hz or 3 kHz, with phone emissions specifically prohibited in certain subbands where 3 kHz would be permitted."


The conflict in this proposal is in the fact that the ARRL is presenting it as "We are getting more" even though they propose we "limit" bandwidth.

So the question now becomes, Are we getting "more" by placing limitations on bandwidth?

While I agree that we should have bandwidth limits to prevent QRM etc., At the same time, I also believe we should have the latitude to experiment with various digital modes, including some future modes that do not yet exist.

The idea of "limitations" or "restrictions" sound good in theory, but it may limit what we are capable of achieving in practice.

73

Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by GILLIAM_LINEBERRY_EX_N4VOX on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
This is the 21st Century. It is time for us to let the past go. Digital is very important and CW has no value any more. This is a good proposal and should be implemented.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KG5JJ on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
"The unused space is there -- just check the amount of use between 3500 and 3700 MHz during the prime operating hours of 7 to 10 PM. All too often I will count less than ten (10) CW and/or digital QSOs in progress at any one time. This is real under utilization."

Bill:

The above suggestion is nearly as desirable, or as funny as a flood in an Alka-Seltzer factory.

73 KG5JJ (Mike)
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by W8MW on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
>Unless I have missed the point completely, all I see here is a request for more FCC regulation -- for the purpose of implementing the ARRL's desires.

That's the way it looks to me too Bill. This thing stinks and serves the interests of a very few at the expense of the rest of us.

Some of the language in Part 97 is ancient and is holding back digital operations and developments. A petition requesting deregulation, not added regulations, would be appropriate. And I think most hams would have no trouble with a gentleman's agreement giving 3 kHz digital modes some room to operate. Instead, this petition goes far beyond its stated purpose and imposes penalties on the majority of people currently operating the HF bands.

Let ARRL know what you think. Maybe they will do the right thing and not let a hand full of "digital experts" turn HF into their version of what amateur radio ought to be.

73 Mike
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by W9WHE-II on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
The ARRL will do anything to take the focus off their pan to "dumb down" ham radio or to avoid taking additional heat for their goofy proposals.

W9WHE
Still supporting the ARRL boycott
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by K7NNG on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I am against it. I believe 20 wpm CW should be brought back also.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by G3RZP on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
As far as I know, the US is the only country where bandplans are not voluntary as far as allowable modes are concerned - mandatory band plans based on licence class are another matter. The rest of the world gets on pretty well with voluntary band planning, so how come the US can't?

I know that some years back, we had the crazy situation of packet being allowed above 14100 for Intra continental use in the US, and those of us legitimately using frequencies down there for SSB had flak from the packeteers. The IARU Bandplan eventually caught up with packet requirements - a mode that from a spectrum engineering viewpoint is hopelessly inefficient - and voluntary bandplans will do the same for the newer more spectrally efficient modes. If you're going to mandatorily split bands by mode, you can justify protecting beacon frequencies, but if we're not responsible enough to voluntary split our bands, are we responsible enough to have them in the first place?

73

Peter G3RZP
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by N2LJD on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
"Unless I have missed the point completely, all I see here is a request for more FCC regulation -- for the purpose of implementing the ARRL's desires."

Concur we don't need MORE regulation, though I would like to see a Novice-class type of license brought back, and the Extra-class license test needs beefing up. Many new Extras can't read a schematic, haven't a clue on calculating MUF/LUF, and couldn't wind a coil (of any type) if they had to. The top level license should have top level requirements associated with it. As to code requirements for Extra, I'm still undecided...

73

Joe
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by VE5JCF on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Yet another thread that degrades into some stupid debate about CW. Personally I think the theory exams should be made harder and just leave the 5 wpm for HF privilages just to keep tradition. The suggestion of 20wpm is a bit over the top. It's important to remember the past not to live in it.

73
Jared
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by W5EEX on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I am with KT0DD and the others.....bring back 20WPM code. It seem to me the last thing we need is more band space on 75 mtrs for the meaningless chatter that goes on there.
73
 
Fan dipole!  
by WB2WIK on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
And that's that.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by K0RGR on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
No, it's actually an attempt to deregulate somewhat - instead of spelling out specific modes that can be used, it says you can use certain bandwidths. And there are some current modes that would benefit, like MFSK, and multimedia, which hasn't really happened here yet. (No, you can't do that with a J-38, and yes, it is real ham radio.)

Personally, I think it's time to join the rest of the world and abolish the mode subbands altogether. The U.S. ham population is now a minority, and growing at a much slower rate than the world ham population. If the rest of the world can get along without hard-wired limits for CW and phone band edges, why are we so incompetent? I personally think that Americans are fairly decent people.

If nothing else, we could go blast the truckers off the low end of 10 meters mano-a-mano!
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KT0DD on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Quote:
"The only thing I see wrong with our current band plans is the need for expanded phone bands -- specifically on 75 meters. The unused space is there -- just check the amount of use between 3500 and 3700 MHz during the prime operating hours of 7 to 10 PM. All too often I will count less than ten (10) CW and/or digital QSOs in progress at any one time. This is real under utilization."

Why does all the focus on re-structuring have to be for the "Latest and Greatest digital technology"? I agree with the above post. If we're going to Harp on the "Experimentation" idea, what about those who want to improve the audio quality of SSB by adding a little width to their signal. They have as much right to experiment as the digital folks do. SSB needs more room the most, but never gets any consideration. 73.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by NK2U on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
This is just another lame pretext by the ARRL to not expand the phone bands! I wouldn't waste me time replying.

Roland, NK2U
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K6BBC on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Well, I see the “let’s kill ham radio off in twenty years” crowd has emerged. I am still baffled when I read fools expound the virtue of retaining an obsolete mode of transmission merely to keep people out of the hobby. They do no one any service. Can you imagine CW being used to send communication in 2050? I don’t think so. But, there are those who believe everyone should learn to drive on a manual transmission as well. I have been a ham for 36 years, hold an Advanced class license which means I took my CW test in front of an FCC examiner in 1969. Is it justifiable for me to say new hams must have the same experience, pass the same rigors as I did – 36 years later! There is no justification for this. When I listen to the bands and hear almost exclusively senior citizen, I must come to the conclusion something is wrong. It’s time to embrace the coming change and move forward welcoming the new hams that will enter the hobby soon.

K6BBC
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WILLY on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
by KT0DD on September 16, 2004

"Yeah, We need license re-structuring to bring back the 20 wpm code for the Extra and 13wpm code for the General tests. :) 73. "

An excellent proposal to change to a positive direction for ham radio.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by K1FPV on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Leave well enough alone! The plan we have now is working pretty well on a voluntary basis. Why try to fix it if it isn't broke?

Regarding the code comments, I say keep the code! At least keep it 5 WPM for General and anywhere from 10 WPM to 20 WPM for Extra. Heck, now it is easier than it was over 40 years ago when you had to appear in front of the FCC at their field office and had to copy X number of characters in a row to pass, not get bits and pieces and manage to figure what is being said to answer multiple choice questions.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WILLY on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
by K6BBC on September 16, 2004

"Well, I see the “let’s kill ham radio off in twenty years” crowd has emerged. "

Where?
I didn't see anything like that mentioned in this thread. Maybe I overlooked it.
By chance, are you imagining it?


"I am still baffled when I read fools expound the virtue of retaining an obsolete mode of transmission merely to keep people out of the hobby. "

Where?
I didn't see any "fools" expounding - but then again, I'm not prone to name calling and/or reading something that is not there.
Further, what mode is obsolete? I saw no mention of an obsolete mode.

"They do no one any service. Can you imagine CW being used to send communication in 2050? "

Of course.


"I don’t think so. "

Odd. One moment your post seems to have plenty of imagination, and the next you demonstrate very little.



"But, there are those who believe everyone should learn to drive on a manual transmission as well."

Good point. Perhaps there should be a restriction on driver's licenses, such that one must prove one can operate a vehicle that has a manual transmission before getting into the operator's seat.

But, if we carried that through to ham radio, then
those that don't know CW wouldn't be allowed to operate a tranmitter so equipped. So the manufacturers might respond with rigs with no CW, correct? Wait... we already have that. It is called CB.

Are you sure this is what you want? Maybe your example wasn't so good after all.

" I have been a ham for 36 years, hold an Advanced class license which means I took my CW test in front of an FCC examiner in 1969."

Excellent.
Congratulations.

"Is it justifiable for me to say new hams must have the same experience, pass the same rigors as I did – 36 years later!"

Of course. Unless there was something wrong with those tests 36 years ago. But they seem to have passed a very good standard - the test of time.

The amount of material and skills surely hasn't declined over time.
To do away with the basics would equate to 'dumbing down', and you don't want to do that, do you?



"There is no justification for this. "

Why not?
Just making a statement, does not make it a truism.


"When I listen to the bands and hear almost exclusively senior citizen, I must come to the conclusion something is wrong."

You are probably right.



" It’s time to embrace the coming change"


What is "the coming change" that you speak of?
If it is a good change, and with good reasons behind it, it will be embraced. If it is a silly change, or change just for the sake of change with no valid reason, then of course it will not be embraced, nor would it be good for ham radio. This is nothing new - just common sense.



"and move forward welcoming the new hams that will enter the hobby soon. "


I certainly hope that all new hams are welcomed.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WA1RNE on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I agree with the last 4 posts. We are certainly not attracting more enthusiasm and adding usefullness as a service by saying yes to the ARRL's current proposal - or the continuation of the current band plan. The band plan as it stands today was a appropriate between 1910 and 1970.

To maintain the same archaic bandplan into the 21st century is just pathetic. Currently, 50% of all band space between 80 and 12 meters is dedicated to CW/RTTY/Data ONLY. (except 60, 30 (all CW), and 18% on 10 meters)

HOW DO WE CONTINUE TO JUSTIFY THIS??

How is this "hobby" going to continue to attract innovators with such "out-moded" planning?? (pun intended)

Our bands should be open to all modes, anywhere in the band. I think power limitations are appropriate in certain segments for the Novice -Tech+ segments but that's all that's really needed.

 
ARRL Band Plan  
by WA6BFH on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I believe that a hearty discussion should ensue as to the different types of digital modulation schemes envisioned. I believe that we should encourage digital modes, all the more important since the oldest digital mode will probably soon fade into non-existance!
The discussion should include not only presently used digital mode transmissions but, speculation about the best future use of the spectrum. Hint: I myself favor
"Analog to Digital" file schemes, and also the use of very narrow bandwidth FM (1 KHz deviation) for signal propagation studies!
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by K3DWW on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I haven't used Morse for years but IIRC one of the primary reasons put forth for keeping it is it's immunity to QRM. That being the case, why must we have special CW bands to protect CW from SSB QRM??
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by OLDFART13 on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with KT0DD.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by OLDFART13 on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with W3ZD.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by N3DRK on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Make Comments? For what. The ARRL does not listen to the membership. They continue like they always have and make their back room deals. Politicans, all of them. E.G. " Hey if you side with me on this, I'll support your position of dropping the code requirement." This continues to go on and you guys get in here and tell everyone to make comments. You guys need to wake up and quit being so naive. This is not Kansas Dorothy.
 
ARRL Band Plan Response  
by N3NL on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

My initial view is that these proposals are well thought out. Especially valuable are the following features:

1. Double Sideband AM operation is preserved as is. This is valuable for all of amateur radio because new hams would be allowed to build simple AM transmitters to get on the air and start learning electronics. These simple AM transmitters would be the no-code era's equivalent of the simple Novice Class Morse code transmitters. Building and operating simple transmitters is a great way to get started in the technical side of ham radio. (I started with a one-tube CW rig.)

2. Amateurs would not be required to measure the bandwidth of their transmissions. Almost all hams (and ham clubs) do not have the financial resources to purchase spectrum analyzers for bandwidth measurements. Also, bandwidth measurement procedures would be overwhelming for new hams.

3. There should be explicit statements in the new
rules that hams are NOT required to measure their
bandwidth and that the traditional amateur radio
modes are allowed by these new rules.

73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan Response  
by NN6EE on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with a few other Posters out here, in that what in the Hell do we need with more (UGH!!!) regulations???

"Holy Poopshoski Batman!" they have'nt even done anything about their recent brain-storm called "License Re-structuring" and now this?

Incredible!!!

My ARRL membership is coming up for renewal next month and now I'm not so sure about renewing!!! :-(((

Jim/ee
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by KF6GOM on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
have to agree with N4VOX we need digital with all the space we have in for code we can share this unused portion of the frequencys.PSK31 is a popular mode now we can let it go away, thanks 73 KF6GOM
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K5LXP on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I honestly don't think the ARRL will revise their proposed petition based on input, they're just opening it up for discussion to give the illusion that they actually care what the membership thinks. By seeding the technical committee with commercial concerns, then dismissing the dissenting votes tells me they've already concluded the outcome. But this is all just banter at this point, where the rubber meets the road is if it actually gets through the FCC to become a NPRM. Then *everyone*, not just ARRL members, can provide an opinion that will actually count for something. Additionally, the ARRL is not the only one that can submit a petition to the FCC. As with no-code, license restructuring and a variety of other issues, there can be multiple proposals on the table for review. It doesn't have to be the ARRL's proposal or nothing.

Mark K5LXP
Albuquerque, NM
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K2WH on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Sigh................

K2WH
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by KE4ZHN on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
"If it aint broke, dont fix it!" By the way, I agree with KTODD.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by KE4ZHN on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Well said N3DRK...couldnt have said it better myself.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by N2LJD on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
WA1RNE - one technical correction. 30 Meters isn't 'all cw' it's "cw, rtty and data (at 200W PEP)."

Maybe I'm lucky in the foothills of the Catskills, but I hear CW all over the bands all the time, and I do think we'll still be sending CW in 2050!

"When in doubt, Code gets out!"

73

Joe
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K3TIN on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with KT0DD
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KC8VWM on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

The Year: 2050...

Today's Date: Day 16, 9th Allocation, Sector B, 2050

Ministry of Amateur Telekenetic and Light Refractive Technology Proposal:

Digital Communication Modes - Should we remove this old fashioned form of radio wave communication in light of today's more modernized embedded brain wave communication devices for today's amateur signal* communications?

(*Note that the word "radio" no longer exists in 2050)


Back to 2004...

Similarly, we are currently looking at modes of communication and the "ministry" of FCC is proposing bandwidth limitations on how we communicate. This may affect how Amateur radio may or may not develop into the future.

Thanks for listening.

Charles - XL7PSLZYJ5 Sector B "Out"
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by OLDFART13 on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with K3TIN
 
NO: ARRL Band Plan  
by K4RAF on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

What the ARRL refuses to see is the FCC wants:

-less regulation, not more...

-less license classes, not more...

-more homoginized structure, not less

We are the only licensed service that the FCC has to track & enforce a stepladder of license classes!

They are in for a slap, just like the VHF/UHF/60M declaration policy. In my view, they have earned it by repeatedly ignoring the FCC's telegraphing these desires.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KT0DD on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I'm glad to see everyone is so agreeable today... It is a refreshing change for E-Slam...Hi Hi :)

I wish to clarify my point as after re-reading my second post, as it may seem contradictory to some. I prefer SSB voice as I feel it is a more interpersonal form of communication, and to me the SSB portions are getting crowded, especially under good propagation, and we could use more room. Besides, CW uses less bandwidth than SSB, so proportionally, it should have less allocation.

However, I passed the 13 WPM for my general, and got my extra after the rule change. Had I been required to learn 20 WPM for the extra, I would have done so. I'm an extra medium I guess. The point is that I support the old code rules, & agree with the elmers who told me that the discipline of learning the code builds charachter and an appreciation & respect for your license. Something freely given away is more often squandered / abused than not.

As far as code being around in 2050, Didn't anyone see the Star Trek movie where Scotty was hammering "S-T-A-N-D B-A-C-K" in morse code, but it was too late for them to get out of the way when he blew a hole in the bulk head? That was the 24th century, Hi Hi. Had Capt. Kirk's speed been 20wpm, they would have gotten out of the way in time. LOL...73.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KT0DD on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Geez...I need to proof read better... I got my "as" in the wrong place. Sorry. 73.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by W8JI on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
The author of this article needs a better location/antenna, or maybe his receiver is not up to snuff, or he isn't used to CW and can't recognize weaker stations or real fast stations. Maybe he counted in summer, when QRN is high and activity low, or on a slow day.

I just tuned across the area from 3500-3650kHz and quit tuning and quit counting at about 100 stations.

73 Tom
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by N4QA on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KT0DD wrote:

"...Besides, CW uses less bandwidth than SSB, so proportionally, it should have less allocation..."

and:

"Geez...I need to proof read better... I got my "as" in the wrong place. Sorry. 73."

That ain't all you've got in the wrong place, son.

A person might just as easily say something as:

"SSB is a god-awful spectrum-wasting hawg of a mode, so its use should limited".

Would make just as much sense as you have made.
Sheesh!





 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by OLDFART13 on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Phone has more space the CW already. Lets look at 20 meters.
CW-14.000-14.070
PSK31-14.070-080
RTTY-14.080-14.100
Beacons, Packet, Foreign phone 14.100-14.150

Phone 14.150-14.350

Before everyone starts jumping up and down about how we can operate CW anywhere except 60meters that answer is that we don't operate CW in the phone or digital portions of the band 99% of the time.

I would support increasing some phone space on 40 and 80 meters. These portions of the band are very busy with the Pig Farmers net and the colostamy bag rag chew sessions.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by KE2IV on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Bill,

Thanks for your ideas; oh, and yes I can see where this thread, if we let it, could well diminish into a N/CW v. CW argument as a later commentator suggested.

I'm a proud Life Member of the League and I believe that the underlying principles of the ARRL's proposal are to achieve increased activity on our HF bands. We do have to 'use them or lose them' - the current activity level is dismal.

Nonetheless, I'm not convinced that the League's ideas are the best proposals to accomplish that worthy goal; particularly since they are very "regulatory", and also somewhat subjective in approach. [For example, why would you accept a 3KHZ wide xmission for "data" but exclude "voice". Isn't voice also data?]

That said, I think that the League's goals are worthy. We need to increase activity on the HF bands (and elsewhere for that matter) and making them attractive to the upcoming "data" generation is one idea worth pursuing.

Because of the N/CW v. CW testing trap we have gotten ourselves into, it is impossible to propose an acceptable band plan unless it absolutely ensures a "preserve" for CW.

So let's do that! I think hams (regardless of their opinion regarding a CW testing requirement) should all be able to agree upon creating in each band a 25KHz or so narrow-bandwidth (i.e. CW) section that is inviolate.

Once we agree upon that AS A FCC REGULATORY REQUIREMENT, it seems that "gentlemen's agreements" on mode usage elsewhere on each band, such as is done on 160M, can be the way to accomplish expanded voice and "data" mode bandwidth without requiring further regulation.

What do you think?
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KT0DD on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
N4QA:
Thank you for reminding me why I choose to operate SSB. With the warm fellowship attitude you have displayed in your remarks, who needs enemies. I may just have to make it a point to never operate CW again, and take my key out into the street and watch how many cars I can get to run over it.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by KA3TKZ on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Who in their right mind would want bandwidth band plans? I do agree with the 13 and 20 WPM. Thank you Whitney KA3TKZ
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KG4PFO on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Support the ARRL !!
Without them.......you would have nothing.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WA1RNE on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Let's see:

"FCC rules now permit RTTY and data emissions throughout the HF CW subbands, although informal agreements typically keep RTTY and data signals out of those parts of the CW band generally used for CW. The ARRL's petition proposes to limit bandwidth in the CW subbands to 200 Hz, which also will accommodate data modes such as PSK31.

In addition, the League's proposal would limit bandwidth in the existing "RTTY/data subbands" to either 500 Hz or 3 kHz, with phone emissions specifically prohibited in certain subbands where 3 kHz would be permitted. Under the proposal, these would include 3650-3725, 7100-7125, 14,100-14,150 and 21,150-21,200 kHz.

"The reason for this is to encourage the development of higher-speed data communications in these subbands by preventing them from becoming de facto 'expanded phone bands.'" Sumner explained."

**Interesting thought: CW operation requires you to use a "key" or "keyer" to turn your transmitter "on" then "off". Sounds kind of familiar, yes?

Like RTTY and Digital, CW is just an old fashioned form of digital communications, right? A bunch of 1's and 0's that make up a "code" - it's just not in binary format.

Question: Considering that CW QSO's on 80 are really jumping tonight by the hundreds" and RTTY is still actually being used (??) and Digital is all the rage - maybe we should just get it over with and petition the FCC (bypass the ARRL on this one) and request they rename this service:

....call it The Amateur Internet Service.

We might as well, because as Mr. Sumner explained, "The reason for this is to encourage the development of higher-speed data communications in these subbands by preventing them from becoming de facto 'expanded phone bands."

This Digital mode is getting out of hand. Doesn't anyone see what's going on here? Amateur radio is being driven by BUSINESS and that means support from manufacturers to build equipment that SELLS. Without bells and whistles - like digital modes, DSP receivers, etc., etc. they won't; it goes on and on.

We need to make up our minds. If you want to play with data, do it on a computer and keep it between you and a couple of twisted pairs and the ethernet.

If you want to play radio and send electromagnetic waves - hopefully modulated in some way, like what comes out of your mouth when you speak - then you use the Amateur RADIO Service.

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by GHOSTRIDERHF on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Who cares

















.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KT0DD on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
WA1RNE: BRAVO! Well Said !!!
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WA3LGG on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
how about this band plan...14.000-14.350 mhz bpl signals only band...21.000-21.450 mhz cable modem signals from leaky cable lines band...28.000-29.700 mhz truckin' bozo's high power cb radio band...radios only sold at the smokey the bandit truck stop cafe and cb shoppe...all other bands returned to the federal gov. except 60 meters...that becomes amateur exclusive...
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KC8VWM on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
"If you want to play with data, do it on a computer and keep it between you and a couple of twisted pairs and the ethernet. "

A valid point...

I think that even data communication on HF may eventually be outdated and be replaced with another form of radio communication.

By limiting our bandwidth options today, we may be inadvertantly limiting our communication possibilities tommorow.

73

Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KG6TEW on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
K14CYB - you're right. Let's hope we don't end up there!
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KG6TEW on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
K14CYB - you're right. Let's hope we don't end up there!
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KG6TEW on September 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Woah - double post!
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by OLDFART13 on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
The gentlemens agreement has worked great so far and will continue to. We don't need more government involvment in amateur radio.

With voluntary band plans and gentlemens agreements Phone portions of HF are more than double what the CW portions is. Even though CW ops can operate on the phone and digital portions of the band they don't 99% of the time. Plenty of room for PSK31, RTTY and other digital modes as well as beacons.

As stated before: If it aint broke then don't try to fix it.

The bands are alive and well with lots of great QSO on all the modes. Very little bad ops on HF, with the exception of a very small amount of pileup police on the phone bands.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by W5GNB on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
If the ARRL "REALLY" wants to look like they are being productive, how about limiting the ARRL CONTEST operating frequencies to 200-Hz !!!

This would cure nearly ALL of our problems on the weekends without all this screwing with the bands AGAIN!!

 
ARRL Band Plan  
by N4UCR on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Hey-leave it like it is- cw is fun-building kits and haming with cw is one of the original fun modes-us old codgers have a need to keep our hobby after years of use-do you old still living hams agree ?
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by OO1TRK on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
My way of licensing Amateur Radio to bring more into the fold of Ham Radio.



License Class and requirements

Novice, 15 questions, no multiple choice, mostly tech and knowledge questions, first ones should be spelling their name and “radio” correctly.
Novice would be a simple upgrade from CB and give phone priv in 10-meter (they are there already) might as well make them legal. (50-Watt max limit)

Technician Pretty much what it is today, add on the 10-meter
For Tech I would make the test a 50 question test, 25 questions multiple choice, 25 written. All based on the same pool of questions out there now, just would take that little bit extra knowledge to get the grade.

Everything else would stay the same, Extra class maybe increase code to 15wpm if you must have it. But I believe an Extra Class should be more based on knowledge then code. You should also make an 85% grade to pass. Extra Class should be the smartest of the operators, so make the tests to reflect that. You should be able to build anything to do with Ham radio from rocks and paper. (spit to hold this together)


I believe we should give CB’ers an easy way to get into Ham Radio, here is a chance to lure them into the hobby with a minimal basic knowledge and you are putting them into a band where many already stray. I also believe that ALL CB’ers should be licensed like it was back in the 70’s. Charge them 5-bucks, and give them their kxx-1234 lic again. At least you may be able to get many back into the fold and some of the scum off of the air a bit easier.

My 4.5 cents worth
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KT0DD on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Canada and other countries dont allocate separate CW / Phone bands the way we do. And they seem to do just fine. 73.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NI0C on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
To W2BLC: Anecdotal summaries of band activity by the average ham are generally meaningless. As W8JI points out, there is a lot more activity on 80m CW than you may be aware of.

To N4VOX, who "claims CW has no value."

Speak for yourself.

To WILLY:

Good rebuttal to K6BBC!

73 de Chuck NI0C


 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K5UJ on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
<<<<They do no one any service. Can you imagine CW being used to send communication in 2050? "

Of course. >>>>

Can anyone imagine cw being used in 2050 if there is no license examination forcing people to learn it?

If cw is as desirable as some seem to think it is, let us have it continue by popular demand; not by "artificial respiration," the forcing of people to learn it to meet an examination requirement. If it is such a wonderful, enjoyable and pleasurable mode, people will always want to learn it and use it and there will not be a need to force people to learn it. Let people "vote" with their operating habits. We are in favor of a democratic process aren't we?

But some of you know deep down that if cw is not forced down peoples's throats, most will not use it, a 19th century mode of communication, and for some reason, you cannot stand to see that happen. This reminds me of the boring college lecturer who could only fill his hall by making attendance a requirement to pass the course and taking attendance at every lecture. If he gave his students freedom of choice in attendance he would be speaking to an empty hall. Instead of becoming more interesting he became a control freak.
You all wish to control by forcing people to learn something whether they want or need to or not.
30 years ago I operated cw 100% of the time. Now it is more like maybe 10%. Get over yourselves already.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KG6TEW on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
To K5UJ - well said. I am learning code now (using Gordon West) and it is actually fun. But I don't want to be forced to use it. I want a general license and I suppose I could wait for ARRL to lift the code requirement but I really do want to learn it.

And I agree with what you wrote - 100%!

73, KG6TEW
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K6BBC on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
The point is UJ, they want to force people to learn CW because they like it. In my house we call that selfish. It’s like forcing a religion on someone because you believe it is “the only way.” Nonsense. Kids raised on MTV and fast paced movies are not interested in learning an art of communication that move at 19th Century speed. You may find a few geeks, but is this all we want populating the hobby? The requirement will vanish and I suspect soon as this argument will go the way of AM vs. SSB. But until then, we will have to listen to all theses puffers going on about why an outmoded, outdated mode must be forced down people throats.

K6BBC
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by N2LJD on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
...and again, The Code Requirement Debate takes over the whole bloody thread!
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NI0C on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
K6BBC writes: "they want to force people to learn CW because they like it. In my house we call that selfish. It’s like forcing a religion on someone because you believe it is “the only way.”"

Who's "they?" The requirements for Morse literacy have been diminished to virtually nothing, and yet we still have people like you continuing to crab about it. The analogy to religion does not withstand scrutiny. It's a literacy requirement, pure and simple.

73 de Chuck NI0C


 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K6BBC on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Sorry N1OC – many treat CW like a religion. If you can’t see that…

K6BBC
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WILLY on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
by K5UJ on September 17, 2004

"...
Can anyone imagine cw being used in 2050 if there is no license examination forcing people to learn it? "

Presently there is nothing forcing people to learn it.


"If cw is as desirable as some seem to think it is, let us have it continue by popular demand; not by "artificial respiration," the forcing of people to learn it to meet an examination requirement. "

Were you forced to learn CW? I find that very odd. Who forced you?

Fortunately for me, I wasn't forced. I wanted to acquire a ham radio license, and decided to learn the required material. That included CW. The point is, I decided - I wasn't forced.
By the way, notice that I decided to do what was required. That's the way it was. For some reason, now days, instead of working to fulfill requirements, it seems to be acceptable behaviour to whine and complain, and repeat over and over and over that CW is not necessary. I suppose the reason for repeating it over and over and over is in the hopes that eventually some will actually believe it.


"If it is such a wonderful, enjoyable and pleasurable mode,"

To each his own. This is very personally opinionated.


"people will always want to learn it and use it and "

"Want" to learn it?
I didn't 'want' to learn it. I wanted a ham radio license, and it was part of the licensing process. Plain and simple.
As a youth, of course I'd have been happier if it was made easy and just handed to me. As an adult, looking back, I have the wisdom to know that that would have done neither me or the hobby any good.


"there will not be a need to force people to learn it. "

There you go, repeating that bit about 'forcing' people to learn something. Repeating it over an over does not make it true.


"Let people "vote" with their operating habits."

They do. AFTER they pass the requirements to get a license.



"We are in favor of a democratic process aren't we? "

Of course not. Not unless you are willing to take it to your congressman, and get him/her to bring pressure on the FCC.


"But some of you know deep down that if cw is not forced down peoples's throats,"

There's that 'force' again.


"most will not use it, a 19th century mode of communication, and for some reason,"


So what?
For that matter, all of ham radio is a 20th century mode of communication. Today, we have cell phones and the internet. If we extended your example, we'd have to get rid of ham radio.
Amongst other things, it is a hobby. One of the things that binds it together is its history. Another is its licensing requirements. In the world of communications, it was always good to know that just because another person held a callsign, that they could copy code.


" you cannot stand to see that happen. This reminds me of the boring college lecturer who could only fill his hall by making attendance a requirement to pass the course and taking attendance at every lecture. If he gave his students freedom of choice in attendance he would be speaking to an empty hall. Instead of becoming more interesting he became a control freak."


As far as I know, in talking with many of today's college students, almost all professors now take roll and require attendance.


"You all wish to control by forcing people to learn something whether they want or need to or not.


There's that 'force' thing again.

By the way, are you qualified to say what people need?
And, if you wish to make a change, how are you qualified to override that which has passed the test of time for so very many years?



"30 years ago I operated cw 100% of the time."

Excellent.


"Now it is more like maybe 10%. "

And you are still here. See..? It wasn't so bad.
You are providing a good example for the new incoming hams. Tnx.



"Get over yourselves already."

I'm sure you can.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by K1CJS on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
If it ain't broke, why try to fix it???
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WILLY on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
by K6BBC on September 17, 2004

"The point is UJ, they want to force people to learn CW because they like it. "

Here's another reference to 'forcing' people to learn CW.

I have never met a U.S. ham that was forced to learn anything.


"In my house we call that selfish. "

In my house, when we learn something and fulfill requirements to get what we want, we call it rewarding.


"It’s like forcing a religion on someone because you believe it is “the only way.”

I've never lived in a country where that happens, so I cannot relate.


" Nonsense. "

Yes, forcing a religion on people certainly is.


"Kids raised on MTV and fast paced movies are not interested in learning an art of communication that move at 19th Century speed."

Good point. Very true. The solution is simple and very obvious, isn't it? Monitor what children watch on TV and in movies, and shut it off when needed.



"You may find a few geeks, but is this all we want populating the hobby? "

Not necessarily.
"Geeks" traditionally are a high percentage of what is attracted to the hobby, - that is just the nature of the hobby. It is a bit technical and experimentation is not only allowed, but encouraged.

What we want to attract are people that are interested in the hobby. Interested enough to realize that they must fulfill some minor licensing requirements. Wise enough to know that these licensing requirements help to preserve and create the hobby - that which is so attractive to them.


"The requirement will vanish"

Says who?
I see this sort of thing repeated over and over and over, again and again. That alone does not make it true.


" and I suspect soon as this argument will go the way of AM vs. SSB. But until then, we will have to listen to all theses puffers going on about why an"


And I suppose that the rest of us will continue to read the postings of others, over and over and over again, saying things like


"outmoded,"

and

"outdated mode"

as supposedly good reasons for doing away with the code.


"must be forced down people throats."

Of course, some believe that they were 'forced' to do something too.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WILLY on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
by K1CJS on September 17, 2004

"If it ain't broke, why try to fix it??? "



Exactly.

Tnx.

73
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NI0C on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
W1llY:

Congrats once again for your excellent thoughtful postings! Well done!

73 de Chuck NI0C
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KD4MXE on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
k5uj you havegot it right good post , Bill kd4mxe
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by OBSERVER on September 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I think we should have license restructuring, eliminate the code, and what the heck just send the FCC a check no test required. Next we should adjust the band plan. On 75 meters instead of frequencies we should have channels. Give the key pounders Ch 1 through Ch 8, leave Ch 9 for emergency traffic, let the truckers have Ch 19 and the nets can fight over the rest. Of course SSB would be strictly on Ch 22 and 23. As this becomes popular, WE can expand the spectrum to accomodate Ch 24 through Ch 40 and beyond. Few simple tweaks to the radio and the sky is the limit! Walmart can sell amatuer radios like the ORIEN (Manufatured in Ireland but similar to the ORION), license required to purchase a radio of course.

Heck we don't have more important things to worry about like say BPL. Why not go for it and spread our resources out even further? I really think this might work...... ARRL are you listening?

Observer is 10-8, 10-10 on the side.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by KG6VPU on September 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
ya know something,,, I thought that this was suppose to be a hobby??? All them old timers keep saying bring back the old ways(days) of getting a HAM licence.

Why should I have to take the "tests" like you guys did a hundred years ago?

Ummm, its 2004 and 2005 is just around the corner. My guess is that they refuse "change" and are forever lost in the past :)

As for the band plan, there's nothing wrong with it.

KG6VPU
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by RADIO123US on September 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KG6VPU said "Why should I have to take the "tests" like you guys did a hundred years ago?
Ummm, its 2004 and 2005 is just around the corner. My guess is that they refuse "change" and are forever lost in the past :) "

Have you ever considered the fact that YOU might be the one that is refusing to change ?
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KG6VPU on September 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
RADIO123US, why would anyone want to go back to the way it was? If it wasn t for those changes alot of HAMS wouldn t be here today,,, including me. And without some sort of regulation within the bands, its going to be a mess,,, just like when 10m it opens up and you hear AM talking stations from south of the border in the CW portion of 10m.


KG6VPU
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WA4MJF on September 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
KT0DD,

In the US we allocate phone bands,
CW may be used on ANY* amateur
frequency.

73 de Ronnie

*except on the 60 (sic) Meter band
that we share with the US Government.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WILLY on September 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
by KG6VPU on September 18, 2004

"ya know something,,, I thought that this was suppose to be a hobby??? "

Why the question?
It is a hobby.


" All them old timers keep saying bring back the old ways(days) of getting a HAM licence. "

Maybe - just maybe - with all the experience they have accumulated, they have learned something. Maybe that experience counts for something, just like experience in any other field is valuable.



"Why should I have to take the "tests" like you guys did a hundred years ago? "

Wrong question. The right question is, "Why shouldn't you?"


"Ummm, its 2004 and 2005 is just around the corner. My guess is that they refuse "change" and are forever lost in the past :) "

Not just here in this hobby, but anywhere, be suspicious of those that want change just for the sake of change. Especially when they want to change something that is well established.
The easy way to tell, is that they can produce no good reasons for desiring the change. Often they cite such things as 'get modern' and 'keep up to date', implying that just because something has been around for a while that it MUST need changing.
See the other comment re: Don't fix it if it ain't broke.


"As for the band plan, there's nothing wrong with it. "
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WILLY on September 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
by KG6VPU on September 18, 2004

"RADIO123US, why would anyone want to go back to the way it was? "

Because it was better.


"If it wasn t for those changes alot of HAMS wouldn t be here today,,, including me."

That would be a shame. But each of them, including you, gets to make that choice. That is what it would be - your choice.
There never was anything preventing anyone - just like now - from getting a license. I hope your statement didn't mean to imply that there ever was.



"And without some sort of regulation within the bands, its going to be a mess,,, just like when 10m it opens up and you hear AM talking stations from south of the border in the CW portion of 10m. "

??
What do you mean by "some sort of regulation" ?

Certainly not U.S. regulations. They can never affect folks "from south of the border".
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by N5GLR on September 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
FYI ... Here's a copy of the comments I sent to ARRL on this proposal.

"Gentlemen,

I'm am writing in strong opposition to the current proposal for the following reasons:

1, This proposal appears to be a wholesale "land grab" by the proponents of digital communications at the expense of the majority of operators. I am unwilling to give up even 1hz of current operating space to make room for any other mode. Band segments are available for those modes already.

2. The impact of this proposal on the amateur community is very poorly explained leaving far too many questions unanswered.

3. I admit that I am "dumb" in the area of most digital modes however, I can understand signal bandwidth requirements and this proposal appears to promote modes with bandwidths far in excess of those currently in use. We should be focused on using less bandwidth, not more. We should abandon any mode that\requires more bandwidth and promote modes that use less. I approve of the attempt in this proposal to preserve traditional modes such as AM, CW, etc. but, it appears to crowd them into much smaller segments of the bands.

4. This proposal does nothing to resolve the issue of a commonly encountered problem when operating any digital mode... station identification. If you're not operating the mode being transmitted, it's impossible to identify the transmitting station. Where is the proposal to have digital stations transmit their call sign in a form that all operators can easily interpret? How can we "police" the bands if we don't know who the offending station is?

Sincerely,
Garry Rife
N5GLR
ARRL Member"
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by W2DWL on September 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
IS THIS A QUESTION OF CONTOL THE POPULACE OR FREEDOM OF CHOICE. IF SOME OPS WANT TO DO CODE LET THEM TAKE THE CODE TEST AND THIS WILL GIVE THEM THE PRIVLEDGE TO OPERATE IN THE CW PORTION OF THE HAM BANDS. IF YOU WANT TO DO PHONE THEN PASS THE WRITTEN PORTION OF THE TEST AND NOW YOU TOO WOULD HAVE PRIVLEDGES ON THE PHONE PORTION OF THE HAM BANDS. IF YOU WANT TO DO OTHER MODES, THEN DO SO BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE TO, NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE FORCED TO. WHY MAKE EVERYTHING SO DIFFICULT? WHY FORCE PEOPLE TO DO WHAT OTHERS WANT THEM TO DO.
STAND BACK AND TAKE A LONG LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPEINING TO THE AMATEUR COMMUNITY. TO SOME ITS CALL DIVIDE AND CONQUER, IN OUR CASE ITS TAKE THE ALLOCATED FREQUENCES AWAY FROM THE ARGUING HAM OPS AND GIVE THEM TO BIG BUSINESS FOR TONS OF MONEY AND LITTLE REGULATIONS.
ITS NO SECRET THAT THERE IS LITTLE GROWTH INTO THE HOBBIE AND WE NEED TO PROMOTE AND NOT DESTROY WHAT WE HAVE.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KD4MXE on September 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
w2dwl good post thats the way it should Be , but get ready to get it from the I done it you got to do it,s you are almost in the same boat that i am in with a post like that, Bill
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NI0C on September 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
From W2DWL:
"WHY MAKE EVERYTHING SO DIFFICULT?"

What is it that you find so difficult?
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NI0C on September 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
According to KG6VPU:
"As for the band plan, there's nothing wrong with it."

How many of the bands and modes affected by the proposal have you operated?

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Ah, yes, the old Morse-testing debate.

The debate is, as usual, about the wrong things. The question at issue is "Does element 1 serve any purpose useful to the FCC?" The FCC, years ago, examined and dismissed all of the pro-test arguments, most especially the 'filter' argument.

Morse code is a fun, anachronistic, way to communicate, and the rules should always allow it. But Morse code proficiency is no more relevant for determining who should or should not be allowed amateur priviliges that the ability to properly anchor a tower.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WILLY on September 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
by AE6IP on September 18, 2004

"Ah, yes, the old Morse-testing debate.

The debate is, as usual, about the wrong things. The question at issue is "Does element 1 serve any purpose useful to the FCC?" "

Maybe you have the question that will ultimately decide it. However, it is greatly different from asking if the CW test should be kept.
You have an interesting point.


" The FCC, years ago, examined and dismissed all of the pro-test arguments, most especially the 'filter' argument. "

They are allowed to be wrong.


"Morse code is a fun, anachronistic, way to communicate, and the rules should always allow it. But Morse code proficiency is no more relevant for determining who should or should not be allowed amateur priviliges that the ability to properly anchor a tower."


Incorrect.
Many hams, likely the majority, have spent their whole ham radio career without ever owning a tower.
Until the recent past, we could say that every person with a ham radio license could copy morse code.

Owning a tower is a function of money. Copying CW is a function of skill and learning.

One is not always available to all, the other is.

Copying CW was considered something to be learned, just like Ohms Law is something to be learned. CW is the basics. Ohms Law is the basics.

Why on earth would we want to remove the requirement to learn something so basic? Because new people don't want to learn it? Because they say they don't plan to use it? Well - applying that logic, we might as well do away with theory too, for anyone that states that they never intend to build or modify any equipment. Why waste time on learning something they say they'll never use, right? It is easy to see the supposed reasons often given for removal of the CW requirement are not logical.





 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WA1RNE on September 19, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Sorry to be so blunt but, if you don't post a call sign, then it's fair to say you didn't take a test.

If you didn't take a test and don't have a license, how would you have the slightest idea what you're talking about?

There's a heck of a lot more to being a ham than just building a piece of gear - or being able to operate CW.

The real skills are knowing HOW to communicate and with the right resources AT A GIVEN TIME AND NEED. CW happens to be a resource, though very outdated in comparison to other more modern, readily available modes at our disposal.

It's simple and effective but in my opinion, should no longer be allowed exclusive use in 50% of most available amateur HF band space.

In these terms, the current regulations do not fit with the times. Instead, heir purpose seems crystal clear: to remind others outside of our fraternity that we are an "exclusive bunch" that can send the code, which most others can't - all seamingly in an effort to appease the egos of a select "older, very stubborn fraternity" in order to keep the hobby exclusive - even though I tend to be within that class with over 32 years as a ham. The difference being that I keep an open mind and am not petrified of a changing world.

I am in favor of allowing CW operation to continue but not as a means of approving or rejecting new persons to the hobby and not as an exclusive mode of operation inside a whopping 50 % of our HF band space.

This was a great plan for 1955 but this is 2004 and close to 50 YEARS LATER we've come a log way baby...... Time to ROLL WITH THE CHANGES - and get with the program.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KG6VPU on September 19, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
>>>> This was a great plan for 1955 but this is 2004 and close to 50 YEARS LATER we've come a log way baby...... Time to ROLL WITH THE CHANGES - and get with the program.<<<<

Well Said.


KG6VPU Bill
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 19, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
>> The debate is, as usual, about the wrong things.
>> The question at issue is "Does element 1 serve any
>> purpose useful to the FCC?

> Maybe you have the question that will ultimately
> decide it. However, it is greatly different from
> asking if the CW test should be kept.

It is exactly the same question. The Morse code test, element 1, is a test intended to serve an FCC purpose. If there is no FCC purpose, then the FCC, by federal law, is required to remove the test.

When last asked to remove the test, the FCC found that it served no purpose for the FCC, _but_ they could not remove it because of the radio regulations. That requirement has been dropped from the radio regulations.

They are not, by the way, wrong in their rebuttal of the filtering argument. It is, and has long been apparent, that the service was no worse off before code testing was first introduced, and that the introduction of code testing did not improve the service.

Nor is there any empirical evidence to support the argument that removing it from the tech license and reducing the speed for other licenses has made any difference. Bad apples have always crept into the service, and good people have always been distracted by other pursuits.

To date, proponents of element 1 have offered no reason to retain the test that the FCC has not already dismissed. If the FCC remains consistent to its own reasoning, then element 1 is doomed. (They are legally bound to a certain degree of consistency, but that does not mean that they will certainly rule as they have in the past.)

Why remove the requirement? Because the test serves no useful purpose to the FCC.

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K0SSI on September 19, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Yes, you're correct! It IS the MONEY!!!! The FCC is so money hungry that by the year 2050, there may NOT be any more Amateur Radio! Look at the lower end of 220.000. UPS requested it and got it. Then they never used it, but instead of returning it to the Amateur Radio spectrum, they sold it to a company in Florida for low orbit satelite communications that failed miserably! And we STILL didn't get 220-222 back. How many 220 repeaters had to be re-crystaled because of this, Nationwide?
Yes, I am an ARRL member, but the ARRL gets a vote of "NO CONFIDENCE" from me! They can't get their act together on one thing, let alone 3 or 4 at the same time!

Our local ham club has 13 or 14 young members (11-18), but I have seen only 1 at club meetings! Other than a few of us, the average age of the club membership is 70. Many attribute this to Cellphones, etc. What is forgoten is the fact that a cellphone will only work to a certain range, then are worthless. Amateur radio will always fill these gaps. It is nice to be in the back country and be able to make contacts via ham radio that you couldn't ever consider via cellphone, echolink or IRLP! And when the lines are down, Echolink and IRLP probably will not work! The present digital modes are reliable with more to come, but I agree with other posters, that SSB on BOTH 75 and 40 need expansion.

Why do we need more Government regualtion? They already tell us that they know how to raise our children better than we do! They tell us that at the age of 18, we are old enough to give our lives for our freedoms and old enough to vote, but not old enough to drink alcoholic beverages responibly.

Some of the best "cutting edge" communications available today have been designed, developed and tested by Amateur Radio Operators, because they like to experiment! More regulation would probably hamper this experimentation, especially dollarwise! I have a friend who holds an Extra Class license, has all the High Dollar HF, VHF and UHF toys, but LOVES to xperiment with microwave at 47Ghz. Now that's experimenting and trying to bring Ham Radio into the 21st century!
Hopefully, HF, VHF and UHF with all the different modes will never go away, but unless the ARRL and the FCC start listening to Ham Radio Operators Nationwide, they could possibly go away over the next 50 years. I certainly hope that I never see this happen in my lifetime!

Bill
k0ssi
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KC8VWM on September 19, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
"Some of the best "cutting edge" communications available today have been designed, developed and tested by Amateur Radio Operators, because they like to experiment! "

The question now becomes, Are we "continuing" our experimental pursuits ,or have we become so wrapped up in code vs. no code that we have abandoned our experimental pursuits ?

73

Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by RADIO123US on September 19, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
It's just an observation, but that hams that I know who have the motivation to experiment with new things are those that had the motivation in the first place to learn the code. Maybe it's the fact that these folks are not scared of a challenge, and want to learn new things.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by WIRELESS on September 19, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Someone asked "do we need more government regulation?". After reading posts on this site from more than a few , hams seem to love regulations, procedures, rules, etc........

Look at some of the old articles. There are tons of them that start out "new procedures needed", "rules changes needed"........

The ARRL likes this kind of stuff so they can propose new rules, procedures, and paper filings so they can give the impression they are doing something.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by WB8PUM on September 19, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
The thing to be considered in any band plan is this.
Ham radio is dying and the statistics prove this out.
I have put some effort into fostering new hams and the result being both my sons and several other friends have obtained licenses as a result.
I have found bringing new hams to a ham club meeting is met with contempt by the frumpy om's!
I find the frumpy om’s may be able to do 30 wpm of CW in their head but they will be sitting alone and off the air along side of their gear as the ham frequencies get auctioned off to special interest and corporations due to the lack of activity. If CW is so important and so great then why are all of the CW bands so vacant? Are people just getting stupid?
Hiram Percy Maxim in his day was with the program. He was inventive, creative and had and insisted on bringing humor to ham radio, the Wouf Hong a prime example of something missing today. The same inventive creative spirit Mr. Maxim has left the building. The dwindling ranks of ham radio is not because of computers and new technology. It’s because of the Frumpy Men that all wish to be ARRL OO’s and force old outdated technology on fresh new young minds. Most of these OM’s (some pretty young in years) know nothing about any of the new digital technologies. They specialize in forcing a grave seriousness on all, when contemplating anything about ham radio. It is no longer a pool of inventive people experimenting and creating new technologies. It is a dying group of religious, political fanatics that are no longer having fun but behave more like prisoners guarding their food! The fact is we need more hams for this, the best hobby in the world to survive. The younger inventive people will not be interested in half of an HF band being dedicated to the Edison Wax cylinder technology of CW. Like the Edison Wax cylinder CW does need to be preserved in its place and available for those who have interest.
The ARRL had better take a serious look at these younger people who can make Linux sing and dance. The inventive young teens who understand networking and complex operating systems are where the future of ham radio lies.
I am surprised that one of those has not proposed that all ham radio data transmission be converted first to CW then decoded.
These frumpies seem bound and determine to stifle the growth and eventually kill the hobby that they don’t love, but rather control.
The Frumpies live to 1.control repeaters 2.control local ham clubs 3. Use the word official in a sentence. 4. Complain about how ham radio is be being ruined by so many new people.
I would like to add that I have yet to meet a Frumpy who was technically competent, creative, inventive or had a sense of humor.
If Hiram were around today he would be using the Wouf Hong and it would not be on the newbie’s!
The ARRL will not have the funds to exist if they let the Frumpies continue to bah and humbug this hobby.
I think any new band plan must consider first the new technolgy and how to make room for it!
I know as engineering cheif for a number of radio stations you won't find turntables in any of these places! It's real odd to find a reel to reel.
Boy i'll bet this disturbs the Frumpies!



 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NI0C on September 19, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Charles, KC8VWM, asks: "have we become so wrapped up in code vs. no code that we have abandoned our experimental pursuits ?"

Those who seem most "wrapped up" in this dispute are those who want code testing to disappear. Their motivations have been explored in great depth in previous threads.

73 de Chuck NI0C
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K6BBC on September 19, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
WB8PUM said:

“I know as engineering cheif for a number of radio stations you won't find turntables in any of these places! It's real odd to find a reel to reel.
Boy i'll bet this disturbs the Frumpies!”

That is a great point. Some of you mental geezers should take note.

K6BBC
 
RE: Turntables  
by WA4MJF on September 19, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I'm an ole fart (ham since '62) and even I
know that almost all music stations are
fed by satellite from a headquarters,
such as Clear Channel and/or use carosels
with cart machines. This has been going on
for years. So it is no surprise that
there are no turntables and probably very few,
if any studios. Because there are no disks
to play on the turntables that aren't there,
no need for a disk jockey nor a board. No
AP Model 15 Teletype in the closet spewing out
the news either.

We ole farts aren't as stupid as some of the
young hams seem to think.

73 de Ronnie
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by N3DRK on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
The majority of the youth are not interested in ham radio. As we all know the internet and computers has the kids attention. The ARRL is pushing the digital modes in a vain attempt to attract these youth and thus increase ARRL membership while at the same time dumbing down in the theory testing and no code. This is the route ARRL is taking. I would rather see ham radio die which it has a very good chance of doing.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NI0C on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
WB8PUM asks: "why are all of the CW bands so vacant?"

They're not. Where've you been?


"The younger inventive people will not be interested in half of an HF band being dedicated to the Edison Wax cylinder technology of CW."


Anyone (young or old) who is "inventive" in the field of communication will have enough knowledge of basic communication theory to recognize that your "wax cylinder" analogy simply doesn't apply. CW communications is not bound by any particular hardware, and still is the most bandwidth-frugal mode of communication available to us, in terms of a mode that can be decoded by ear.

73 de Chuck NI0C




 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KD4MXE on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
wB8pum Good post ,But those die hards dont like to hear that your post well said, Bill kd4mxe
 
RE: Turntables  
by K5UJ on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
<<<and/or use carosels with cart machines.>>>

WA4MJF you are right about being an o.f. radio stations have not used cart machines in years. everything, jingles, spots, music is all off PC hard disks now.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WB8PUM on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
WA4MJF wrote

I'm an ole fart (ham since '62) and even I
know that almost all music stations are
fed by satellite from a headquarters,
such as Clear Channel and/or use carousels
with cart machines. This has been going on
for years. So it is no surprise that
there are no turntables and probably very few,
if any studios. Because there are no disks
to play on the turntables that aren't there,
no need for a disk jockey nor a board. No
AP Model 15 Teletype in the closet spewing out
the news either.

We ole farts aren't as stupid as some of the
young hams seem to think.

73 de Ronnie

Ronnie no sarcasm intended but to illustrate how
easy it is to not keep up to speed.
Please don’t be offended by this as that is not my
Intention.
There are no carosels in radio stations today.
Gone 20 years ago!
Cart machines are very very rare.
I have 30+ that work fine in a junk heap infested
with spiders and dust.
Ronnie there are very few CD players in radio
stations today. Almost none in on air studios.
All music is transferred at high speed to hard drive
by cd rom.
It takes 30 seconds to record a 4 minute song.
There are plenty of DJ’s and a new system called
voice tracking! This allows the DJ to play the tail of a song
and hear the ramp of the next then save the track.
A four hour radio show can be created in about 45 minutes.
The audio processors like the Omnia
6 are Linux boxes designed by geniuses!
I just took an advanced Unix admin class with my 19 year old.
I passed with a B and I’m 53 but I remember the Gates Level Devil.
The technology today is amazing and intriguing!
The audio is digital from the computer that is playing the
music or commercial all the way to the transmitter exciter.
We are about to convert am and fm to IBOC digital.
Salem Radio Networks is pioneering a new radio automation
software in SuSE Linux (Rivendell) that is open source and free to all.
It is sweet! http://www.salemradiolabs.com
Ronnie I am only 4 years younger than you so I am an old fart as well.
As a former CKLW “big 8” DJ there is no one that appreciates old
turntables and vinyl any more than I.
I own a Heath DX 100, a Johnson Viking II and a Drake TR-4.
Nice stuff to visit and preserve.
Ham radio needs to be respected for it’s rich past but what will make it
grow and prosper is the new fresh minds.
The new band plan should focus down that road and make it
possible for new minds to pioneer new technologies!
The hobby needs to demand the respect of the public.
Echolink will grab the attention of prospective ham geniuses.
How many can you get by demonstrating a CW contact?
I am 53 years old and I love talking in my car from Nashville over
a repeater in my home town Detroit.
Us old farts need to have some fun with this hobby and get out of the
Past.
We can learn much from our younger counterparts as we teach them
the legacy and history of ham radio..
Ham radio can serve mankind as the developing ground and springboard
for fresh young minds to give birth to new technology like it has in the past.
That is what these Ham Radio bands are for!
This is what justifies our existence as we provide a service and set the pace
for emergency and radio communication.

To N3DRK
To say that computers have detracted from Ham radio is ignorance gone to seed.
Computers have been mass marketed.
The youth of today have just not had the privilege to be introduced to Ham radio.
So say that you would rather see Ham Radio die demonstrates exactly all my points.
What a selfish attitude.
What is it exactly that you care about?
How many new hams have you fostered?
My 19 and 23 year old are ate up with it and they live on computers!
I didn’t start off with a code practice oscillator or making a CW contact.
They taught me about Echo link and VOIP.
They are working OSCAR I am just learning what packet is.
You need to lighten up and start hanging around some young people.



 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KD4MXE on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
wb8pum tell them like it is , the arrl needs you up there with them, they could use your help, Bill
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K6BBC on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
N3DRK said:

"This is the route ARRL is taking. I would rather see ham radio die which it has a very good chance of doing."

What a fine example you are, but thank you for making my case -- many geezer, no change, pro code types are so selfish they would rather see the hobby die. Thanks a lot.

K6BBC
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KI7YY on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Bring back the code! Digital heretics must be burned at the stake! the faith must be kept pure!
(and I'm a cw man)
73, KI7YY, Kirk
.-.. --- -. --. .-.. .. ...- . - .... . -.-. --- -.. . .-.-.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by W3NRL on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
As always this code-no-code draws much attension to say the least. I tried to get my son and some of his buddies (young men in there 20's) in to ham radio, and i explained the procedures of testing and know code to advance in to more prividges, they all looked at me like i was some kind a of goof ball!!!! son says " Dad get with the times if i want to talk to aunt so-and-so if florida i use my cell phone or the computer why do i need to study some form of communication to talk on a radio, that i need to spend more money in buying antennas, coax, radios and what ever it talks to do it your way!!!! And i don't need to study an old form of communications and pass a test to talk on a cell phone or computer!!! Of cource this went over his head as far as being a hobby, but his point was communications is now not yesterday technology to talk today.
As he also stated yes code stated many moons ago and if technology stayed with the old ways we would of never gotten to the moon."...
Anyway i agree with some of the points that were stated we should be promoting ham radio instead of fighting about code-no-code...on my radio and i am sure most of them out there it has "CW" as MODE same as USB,LSB, AM,FM..so this is a mode if i want to use it as all the other modes i can ( by the way i am taking my code test next saturday, already pass my written for general) I want to do code because i want to do it not because somebody says i have to. If the band plan will help ham radio, then lets do it!!!!
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K6BBC on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
W3NRL, these pro-code fanatics don’t view Ham Radio as a hobby either, they view it as a fraternal order where CW is the secret handshake. As a previous poster stated, he would rather see the hobby die than see CW removed as a requirement. This attitude is clearly reminiscent of cultish doctrine. If you remember your recent history, there have been many cults that ended with the suicide of its members. Nice huh?

K6BBC
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NI0C on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
K6BBC said: "thank you for making my case -- many geezer, no change, pro code types are so selfish they would rather see the hobby die. Thanks a lot."

How does one such comment translate into "many"?


 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by W3NRL on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
K6BBC; thanks for you point of view.
Many coders seem to want to live in the past, hey that's there business, not mine!!! i for one want to see the hobby and the many operators in this hobby advance. There is more room for advancment then to keep the past as our future. But as you say they would rather see the hobby die then CODE!!! It may come to that. I hope not
thanks for you comments
de w3nrl
Nick
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by W3NRL on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
K6BBC; thanks for you point of view.
Many coders seem to want to live in the past, hey that's there business, not mine!!! i for one want to see the hobby and the many operators in this hobby advance. There is more room for advancment then to keep the past as our future. But as you say they would rather see the hobby die then CODE!!! It may come to that. I hope not
thanks for you comments
de w3nrl
Nick
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AD6WL on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
K6BBC said: "thank you for making my case -- many geezer, no change, pro code types are so selfish they would rather see the hobby die. Thanks a lot."

To bad that statistics don't support your argument. There are more licensed hams now then ever before. The numbers show that the amount of Generals and Extras is also at an all time high so more people are getting into ham radio and they are learning the code and upgrading.

I am speaking as a 5wpm extra and feel that the small amount of effort to be introduced to the code at a mere 5wpm is well worth the operating privileges that you earn. Noticed that I said “introduced to the code” because it is only a starting point for those who wish to learn to use the code and become proficient at it. Others may find after this introduction that they don’t care to use it and may simple forget about it. There is no forcing it upon anyone.

As for band plan changes, as other have stated: “If it isn’t broke it doesn’t need fixing.”
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K6BBC on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
The overall numbers of hams is not increasing; it has flattened with a future tendency to decrease. Almost half new hams are Techs. But why look at numbers. The bands are not as active as they were 25 years ago. Most hams I hear on the air are senior citizens who have been licensed a number of years. It is rare to hear a young voice. I was licensed when I was 12 and I can attest to the bands being filled with young people when school got out in the afternoon. This is a phenomenon of the past. It takes listening skills and common sense to see what is happening. The hobby is slowly dieing due to an aging population. There are those who care to save it, and those who would rather see it die than change.

K6BBC
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KC8VWM on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

<sigh>

It seems that there are just no more good paying positions at Western Union these days.

--... ...-- -.. . -.-. .... .- .-. .-.. . ... -.- -.-. ---.. ...- .-- --

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WA1RNE on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"Learning the code and upgrading"......

Can you give us all a SOUND ARGUMENT for requiring morse in order to obtain a license?

I can only think of 2:

#1: Because that's the way it's always been. The old time fraternity says it was applicable in 1948 and it's still right for 2004.

#2: If you don't, you can't UTILIZE 50% of the available HF band space.

#3; Your not really a qualified amateur radio operator without the ability to send and receive morse code.

First, #1 goes right out the window. we're not living in the 40's; this is 2004.

Secondly, #3 is applicable - BUT ONLY BECAUSE OF #2!!

If our band plan was not segregated by mode, CW operation for hams in the 21st century would become totally unnecessary!!!!

It isn't a requirement for emergency communications (it was back in 1948) and it doesn't make any of us more qualified communicators.

I wonder if the FCC has ever listened to a point of view on this subject other than the ARRL's?

Might be a refreshing change, eh??

I concur with K6BBC; I too was licensed at a young age (13) and gained >30 WPM proficiency. There were tons of young people who couldn't wait to get on the air after school and fueled much of the activity back in the 70's and 80's. I don't this to be the case at all today and it is disappointing.

I also couldn't wait to upgrade so I could relax and actually speak to the person on the other end, not communicate the way they did during the Gold Rush of 1849......(I'll bet if you try a CW demonstration in junior high school the kids may associate this technique with a railroad telegraph operator from an old western movie.)

It is also disappointing to hear people who won't think for themselves and continue to follow a single group just because they SAY this is the way it was and this is the way it must stay - without any valid justifiable arguments to support their thinking.

So everyone, where the heck is the justification??

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by W3NRL on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
--- .... -... --- -.--

-.. .
.-- ...-- -. .-. .-..
-. .. -.-. -.-
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K5UJ on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
The real reason for the keeping cw testing mentality is that it is thought to help preserve ham radio circa 1965 in amber so only cw PLUs (People Like Us) get admitted to the club, i.e. predominantly males over 50. The hams who advocate cw testing know that no kid today is going to put up with that, and that doesn't bother them at all. That is the way they like it.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by W3NRL on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Well the thought of keeping ham radio by keeping the CW testing will help keep your mind as old as CW.
By the way i am older then 50.
We need to march foward. Imagine going to Iraq with ball and cap pistols and rifles and morse code.
Or defending our country the way it was in 1776.... today. yea cw go on!!!!!

.-- ...-- -. .-. .-..
-. .. -.-. -.-
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KC8VWM on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"Imagine going to Iraq with ball and cap pistols and rifles and morse code."



"Oh Boy", is right Nick.



--... ...-- -.. . -.-. .... .- .-. .-.. . ... -.- -.-. ---.. ...- .-- --
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NI0C on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Having a good old thigh-slapping hee-hawing good time at the expense of CW are we? Let's see, so far we've heard about reel-to-reel tap recording, wax cylinders, cap and ball guns-- anybody care to add buggy-whips?

Yet no one has yet addressed the technical point I made earlier, namely that CW is the most effective and bandwidth frugal mode available that can be decoded by the human ear. This is a thread concerning bandwidth utilization in amateur radio isn't it?

The fact that Morse code was used for wire communications in the nineteenth century does not detract from the technical advantages of CW for amateur communications in the twenty-first century.

If you are not interested in CW, that's fine with me. But before you start blathering about it being outdated and obsolete, learn some basic communications theory.

73 de Chuck NI0C

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AD6WL on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I have to agree with chuck, NI0C. CW has stood the test of time because of its usefulness as the best mode under various conditions. That is why the military still teaches Morse Code for Special Forces. I have been to Iraq and recently Afghanistan and know Recon operators who have had to use it.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WA1RNE on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Special Forces are in the life saving and extracation business, usually in a hostile environment.

If my life depended on being able to communicate under adverse conditions - be it tapping my shoe on the floor to be heard through a concrete floor or keying the mike of a UHF radio to be heard by a circling chopper - damn straight I would want know CW.

But I don't recall the last time one of my fellow hams performed that sort of duty.

The "duty" were talking about preserving here goes more like this:

"5-7-9, EMASS, your my #4,523 contact"

BK....73



 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NJ0E on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
excellent point, ni0c.

> Yet no one has yet addressed the technical point
> I made earlier, namely that CW is the most
> effective and bandwidth frugal mode available
> that can be decoded by the human ear. This is a
> thread concerning bandwidth utilization in amateur
> radio isn't it?

and it's also the best mode for folks getting
started in putting together their own transmitters
and receivers.

as a backpacking enthusiast, i also readily
appreciate the small size, current-efficiency.
and effectiveness at low signal-to-noise
levels of cw. when i run 0.5 watts, i need all
the help i can get.

this is why the overwhelming majority of the
members of the adventure radio society,
'http://www.arsqrp.org', are cw ops.

73
scott nj0e
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NJ0E on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
i meant 'http://www.arsqrp.com'

nj0e
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K6BBC on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
All good points… but by forcing the requirement, potential good hams are being kept out of the hobby. Nobody’s saying eliminate the mode, just drop it as a requirement. What is so difficult to understand?

K6BBC
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NI0C on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Quote from K6BBC on Sept. 16:

"I am still baffled when I read fools expound the virtue of retaining an obsolete mode of transmission merely to keep people out of the hobby. They do no one any service. Can you imagine CW being used to send communication in 2050? I don’t think so."

Tony, although you put this in a context of testing requirements, this sounded like talk of eliminating the mode to me.

73 de Chuck NI0C
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K6BBC on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Well Chuck, then you must feel better about me as a person.

Tony, K6BBC
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> To bad that statistics don't support your argument.

Ah, but they do. Read on.

> There are more licensed hams now then ever before.

Alas, no. Jim Speroni has investigated Japan, which, until recently, had half the hams in the world. Unfortunately, according to Speroni, the number of Japanes hams is now less that half what it was five years ago.

> The numbers show that the amount of Generals and
> Extras is also at an all time high so more people
> are getting into ham radio and they are learning the
> code and upgrading.

There are more *licenses* than before. However, best estimates are that there are many fewer active hams. If Speroni's results for Japan apply to the US, then there are probably fewer than 200,000 hams *active* in the US.

But more than that, the license data shows that the ham population in the US is old, and aging at a pace faster than the rate at which the average age of mortality is increasing.

The upshot of this is that within 20 years, half the current US ham population will be dead, unless the trends change.

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> Yet no one has yet addressed the technical point I
> made earlier, namely that CW is the most effective
> and bandwidth frugal mode available that can be
> decoded by the human ear.

CW may well be. However, as long as we're being pedantic, let me point out that it is not know that Morse code is the most efficient way to use that bandwidth while preserving the ability to decode by er.

> The fact that Morse code was used for wire
> communications in the nineteenth century does not
> detract from the technical advantages of CW for
> amateur communications in the twenty-first century.

Amateur radio is a hobby. It's about having fun while communicating. It is not about frugal use of spectrum. If it were, we'd all be using spread spectrum techniques, which are more bandwidth frugal, faster, and less noise sensitive than any other.

> If you are not interested in CW, that's fine with
> me. But before you start blathering about it being
> outdated and obsolete, learn some basic
> communications theory.

Oh, I've learned a little communiication theory, from time to time. Morse code, imposed on CW, is a fun mode. No rules change should be made that makes it more difficult to use the mode on the amateur bands.

However, being fun is not a good reason for being required. There is no need to keep element 1.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WB8PUM on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
N1OC Wrote:
Having a good old thigh-slapping hee-hawing good time at the expense of CW are we? Let's see, so far we've heard about reel-to-reel tap recording, wax cylinders, cap and ball guns-- anybody care to add buggy-whips?

Yet no one has yet addressed the technical point I made earlier, namely that CW is the most effective and bandwidth frugal mode available that can be decoded by the human ear. This is a thread concerning bandwidth utilization in amateur radio isn't it?

The fact that Morse code was used for wire communications in the nineteenth century does not detract from the technical advantages of CW for amateur communications in the twenty-first century.

If you are not interested in CW, that's fine with me. But before you start blathering about it being outdated and obsolete, learn some basic communications theory.

73 de Chuck NI0C

Well Chuck we could add buggy whips if they could be tuned up!
As far as thigh-slapping hee-hawing good time it sounds to me that it’s been
a long time since you have had a good time, at least on ham radio.
Frugal seems to be your focus. Why are we not required to pass the drivers license test with horse and buggy or bicycle? Sure is a lot more frugal than an automobile. No fossil fuel required and no hardware and technology.

I recently attended a FCC seminar geared to broadcast radio.
The rep from the FCC stated that he found the CW bands very low on activity and I happen to agree with him.
There is not anyone with a decent receiver and antenna that will make the statement that the CW portion of the ham bands are teaming with activity.
I enjoy working CW at night as I find it relaxing.
Late nights it hard to find a CW QSO on 75 meters.
There are CW nets and that’s fine but for the most part these dedicated CW portions of the bands remain unoccupied.
CW can be used anywhere on any of the ham bands and that is not going to change.
You talk about learning some basic communications theory.
That is what CW is, the most basic and no more.
CW should be preserved and promoted as a competitive part of ham radio.
Those who love CW should be able to pursue that love.
CW does not have anything to do with the technical side of ham radio or electronics.
It is a code used for communications. It just happens to be the code chosen in the early development of ham radio.
Build your own transmitter and receiver should be enough incentive for anyone to learn the code if they want to operate their home brew equipment.
QRP buffs should be encouraged to pursue their interests and they should be respected and a place should exist for them as well.
Once again CW or morse code has nothing to do with the technical side of Ham Radio.
I know many broadcast engineers that have the 1st class or General commercial license even with ships radar endorsement that don’t know code.
These folks must maintain and adhere to a tremendous number of FCC rules and they must understand and maintain a highly technical environment.
This environment is far more complex than anything you will encounter in a Ham Radio situation.
I know plenty of military CW operators that were 30+ words proficient in code that know nothing about electronics.
The morse code is what is, interesting, useful to some, just as stamp collecting.
It would be tragedy if we lost all CW communication on Ham Radio.
But CW is not Ham Radio in itself as you imply.
You can’t win new hams by shoving CW down their throats!
You can’t say CW is more frugal than digital where hundreds of separate QSO’s can occupy the same frequency.
It is ludicrous to allow such large portions of the Ham bands to be exclusively allocated to CW only.
Anyone with any creativity and technical prowess would be drawn to learn and be part of all the amazing new technology that is a “part” of Ham Radio.
I guess if CW was the only thing about Ham Radio that I understood and if I thought that young people today were a sorry lot because they are not attracted to CW then I could agree with you.
Have you ever made an Oscar contact? Have you ever operated PSK?
Have you ever made a contact on Echolink?
Have you ever done any digital phone?
CW is cool, so is AM but the new stuff is just as important and probably more so.
Some of our AM enthusiasts could use a little more spectrum.
You need to get out and around a little bit!


Ted WB8PUM
Blathering in good ole hee haw knee slapping Nashville!
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NI0C on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
K6BBC:

I don't have any problems with you. I know we've disagreed from time to time, but I've come to know you that you are an enthusiastic ham who wants to keep the hobby enjoyable for a long time to come.

73 de Chuck NI0C
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NI0C on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
AE6IP:

I'm not getting sucked into a morse testing debate. Been there; done that. I was merely addressing those folks (and there were several of them) who were claiming that CW has no value in ham radio.

I agree with your point that ham radio is about having fun, and not necessarily optimizing band space. Still this is a thread about band space, and I was saying that CW makes good use of it for the casual data rates that hams require to chat with each other.

73 de Chuck NI0C
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NI0C on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
WB8PUM:

I don't have the time or patience to address the many assumptions and distortions contained in your latest post, except to say that I enjoy the hobby, and I'm not trying to force anything on anybody.

73 de Chuck NI0C
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K6BBC on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Absolutely Chuck – I have been in love with Ham Radio for 40 years! I have been trying to encourage my 4 kids (ages 7-14) to take a look at the hobby. I taught my youngest, Sofia, how to send “hi mom” in Morse when she was 4. But selling the code to youngsters is more difficult that getting them to eat their broccoli. And, introducing them at a time when the entry-level license is a Tech is just not worth it. About 6 weeks before the ARRL announced their restructuring proposal, I wrote every member of the board of directors with a strangely similar no-code HF proposal. The only difference between what they proposed and my idea was allowing the maximum power to be 20 watts and 20 meter privileges. But I was not unhappy with what they came up with. I want new Hams to experience the thrill I did when firing up my DX 60 after school and checking my Mosley CM1 receiver to see if 15 meters was open. Well, I guess those days are long gone but the feelings sure lives in my heart.

K6BBC
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KC8VWM on September 20, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Part 99 Subpart B--Message Forum Operation Standards

§99.101 General standards.

(e)Blathering and good ole hee haw knee slapping with fellow hams may be deemed necessary on certain occasion to the extent permitted by the privileges authorized in order to maintain a sense of occasional enlightened social humor with fellow hams.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by N9LYA on September 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
No they did not shelve this plan... It was mis reported on AR Newsline!!! Jim Haynie made it clear to me that it will not be shelved .. It will be discussed at upcoming meetings.. But not shelved...

73 jerry n9lya
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K4IQT on September 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
As KI4CYB said on the 16th, "ohh no, I see another code -vs- no code thread...".

C'mon - give it a rest, please!
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WB8PUM on September 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Ok lets ask this question:
How much exclusive space does CW need on the Ham Bands?
I think CW sholud be allowed anywhere but does it need to have 1/2 of the total Ham spectrum exclusivly?

Ted Randall (WB8PUM)
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WB8PUM on September 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
As encouraged at the begining of this thread I attempted to e-mail board members of the ARRL.
All of the e-mail I sent bounced with the accounts not active. Are the e-mail addresses posted on the ARRL website valid?
If not does anyone have some valid e-mail addresses?


Thanks
WB8PUM
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NJ0E on September 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
WB8PUM said:
------------

> CW does not have anything to do with the technical
> side of ham radio or electronics.

> Build your own transmitter and receiver should be
> enough incentive for anyone to learn the code if
> they want to operate their home brew equipment.

hmm, these two statements seem to me to be at odds.

you've just made the case (thank you!) that learning
cw puts one in a position to build their own
apparatus and thereby learn a thing or two about rf
electronics (one of the purposes of the amateur
radio service is to cultivate a population with
exactly such skills).

but earlier in your post, you claim that cw has
nothing to do with the technical side of ham radio
or electronics.

i couldn't disagree more!

wayne burdick (designer of the k2) started with
the sst, norcal 40, and sierra before moving on
to the k2. these were all cw only rigs.

similarly for dave benson with the ne40-40, then
later his design of the white mountain ssb
transceivers.

cw is intimately intertwined with the technical
side of amateur radio.

73
scott nj0e
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NJ0E on September 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> Ok lets ask this question:
> How much exclusive space does CW need on the Ham
> Bands?
> I think CW sholud be allowed anywhere but does it
> need to have 1/2 of the total Ham spectrum
> exclusivly?

it doesn't have any.

it shares space with packet, rtty, psk31, pactor 1,
etc.

i've been chased off 40 meter cw when there was a
major rtty contest in progress. it consumed the
entire data subband.

73
scott nj0e
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WB8PUM on September 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
scott nj0e wrote

you've just made the case (thank you!) that learning
cw puts one in a position to build their own
apparatus and thereby learn a thing or two about rf
electronics (one of the purposes of the amateur
radio service is to cultivate a population with
exactly such skills).


Scott

Your point well taken.
What I said however was the reverse. I said that building a simple basic CW transmitter may give someone the incentive to learn the code.
I beleive that talking into a microphone has nothing to do with the technical side of Ham radio as well.
Same applies to typing on a keyboard.

Just as well, building an audio processor or an simple 6146 plate modulated transmitter using a pair of 6V6's as modulators could spur an interest in AM.
Or building a simple SSB transmitter could do the same.

I would suggest that pounding a key is no different than running a mouth or typing on a keyboard it is a mode and only a mode.

Today there are far more modes than CW and Phone.
There needs to be more phone space on 75 meters.
As the originator if this thread has suggested.
Last night at 9:30 PM CST there were 6 QSO's on the entire 75 meter CW band.

I will add in case I am offending anyone I admire and want to encourage all CW operators to preserve and teach this art.

Ted WB8PUM
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K5UJ on September 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I tuned across the 80 m. cw band last night at around 10 PM local. I heard an F6 calling cq dx with no takers down near the low end of the band, and 3 other cw stations tuning from 3.5 to 3.75.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by N8QGC on September 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Well,

This has been a unique read. I'm not going to entertain a debate on code/no-code I use phone and CW so it don't matter to me and besides, that is not what this is about.

My comments to the league:

To whom it may concern:



As a member of the ARRL I am NOT in favor of this proposal at all. If I read you proposal correctly the 75/80 meter phone band would be impacted adversely and I’m not in favor of this at all. Example: Right now it is sort of a gentleman’s agreement that 3790 to 3800 is for DX Phone. Now your telling me that you want to allow data signals that are within the 3Khz bandwidth the ability to transmit there. No way! I did not even bother to look at the rest of the proposal but based on that I would not support this if I were forced to.



I hope that you’ll withdraw this and stay with the current allocations which I believe are fine. If it is not broke why break it?



Regards,



John N8QGC

I received a reply from my division director so they are listening, he was not happy with what I had to say but heard it non-the-less and asked for my input as to what would be a better plan.

I agree with many of you, first let's worry about restructureing and then if BPL isn't all over the place maybe then we worry about this.



 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WA1RNE on September 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I believe these posts have brought several related issues into view as well as some inconsistencies in the ARRL’s overall band and mode planning philosophy.

Specifically:

1) CW and data modes currently occupy 50% of our HF band space. It's been pointed out that data modes consist of packet, rtty, psk31, pactor 1 and others.

Considering that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the vast majority of hams have the means to use these modes, how can this be considered and equitable arrangement??


2) There are some incredible inconsistencies with regard to the reserved spectrum for CW and Data use only.

How is it that you can pile together all of these data modes, which consist of narrowband and wideband transmission protocols and not expect to have interference?

Case in point; PSK31 occupies approx. 60 Hz of bandwidth while PACTOR III occupies approx. 2400 Hz or 40 TIMES the bandwidth!!

Meanwhile, the ARRL finds it necessary to segregate CW/Data from Phone, but doesn't have a problem sandwiching together PSK31 and PACTORIII. How interesting!!!

** NJ0E: As you can see, there are other factors contributing to your problem with QRM. The current band plan for data operation is just as effective (or ineffective) as a band plan where data is mixed with Phone operation.

4) Last but not least, there’s the CW requirement to obtain a license and what this has to do with obtaining Phone and significant HF operating privileges.

So why not just simplify things?

a) Create new specific band segments for RTTY and other Data modes. Size these segments so they reflect the usage requirements OF THE MAJORITY OF AMATEURS, NOT SOME SELECT GROUP. As a rough guess, that works out to a 85/15 or 85% Phone/CW and 15% RTTY and Data. (let the saber rattling begin)

80 meters might look like this:

3500 to 3550 = CW/Phone

3550 to 3625 = RTTY, Data

3700 to 3750 = Low Power CW/Phone, 100 watts or less

3625 to 4000 = CW/Phone

b) Allow Phone and CW to co-exist in the same segment of each band to MAXIMIZE spectrum utilization. Current receiver technology should allow these modes to coexist without QRM being a huge issue.

c) DUMP the CW requirement for licensing. Nobody cares whether you are a CW expert or not – and it doesn't enhance your abilities as a communicator. This must be true, otherwise the Extra CW element would not have been reduced from 20 WPM to 5 WPM – or 25% of the previous speed requirement!!

*Again, CW would still be an available mode of operation. However, CW proficiency would no longer be a requirement to obtain a license. Oh, and no need to worry; the ham population won’t become diseased with Cber’s, although that’s a bunch of egotistical nonsense anyway because many of today’s experienced ham’s started out that way.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NJ0E on September 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
WA1RNE
------

> 1) CW and data modes currently occupy 50% of our
> HF band space. It's been pointed out that data
> modes consist of packet, rtty, psk31, pactor 1
> and others.

> Considering that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the
> vast majority of hams have the means to use
> these modes, how can this be considered and
> equitable arrangement??

i think most hams have the means to operate cw.

cw requires the least "means" of any mode.

it does, however, require skills.

> ** NJ0E: As you can see, there are other
> factors contributing to your problem with QRM.
> The current band plan for data operation is just
> as effective (or ineffective) as a band plan
> where data is mixed with Phone operation.

currently, sharing bandspace between cw and the
data modes is a problem about once a year; during
the arrl rtty roundup.

your proposal looks to me like a year-round
headache.

> c) DUMP the CW requirement for licensing.
> Nobody cares whether you are a CW expert or
> not – and it doesn't enhance your abilities
> as a communicator.

if i have the capability to conduct a qso in the
small bandwidth occupied by a cw signal, and
at the low signal-to-noise levels that are
generally possible for cw,, then i think i can
make a compelling case that indeed my abilities
as a communicator are enhanced (relative to
someone who has not cultivated such proficiency).

that is true of any mode; each one you are fluent
in enhances your abilities as a communicator.

alot of the motivation and frustration for many
of the contributors to this thread is owing in
large part to the spectral inefficiency of
single sideband voice. that's why you all now
covet chunks of the cw/data mode subbands for
ssb voice.

73
scott nj0e
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> I'm not getting sucked into a morse testing debate.
> Been there; done that. I was merely addressing those
> folks (and there were several of them) who were
> claiming that CW has no value in ham radio.

Well, I think the whole "value" argument is rather silly. Morse code on CW is fun for some people. For those people, it has "value", that being that they enjoy it.

That's the only kind of "value" that means anything in a hobby: You enjoy doing it.

It would be utterly stupid to restrict the ability of those using Morse to enjoy themselves by making it more difficult to have a Morse QSO.

Of course, the whole ARRL idea of imposing even more restrictions on band usage and making that imposition formal is both stupid and condescending to the members.

Hopefully, the ARRL has learned enough from exposing the proposal in public that they won't waste any of their effort and our time by putting it before the FCC.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K1CJS on September 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I said it earlier, "If it ain't broke why try to fix it?"

I would like to add that morse has a place in ham radio, maybe not the place that some think it should have but definitely not the excess of place that others think is such the big waste of bandwidth.

The absolute only time the bands are crowded are during major contests--that's when everybody wants everybody else's bandwidth. It is utter nonsense that the gentlemens agreement in place at present is ineffective just because it gets ignored during those contests.

I'm forced to agree with the majority of the writers on this thread. In this case the ARRL is looking out for interests other than that of most ham operators. The plan is not well thought out, it does not make anything better than what it is now, and is just causing argument and hard feelings between most band users.

It should be scrapped for good.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by W6IP on September 21, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Why doesn't the ARRL get out of the business of mis-managing ham radio. At least, why don't they seek the concensus of the hams that are still active?

They continue to get to the legislators too late to do anything -- and then they report what a good job they have done -- in losing more bands.

They waited too long to help with 220, they waited to long to do anything about BPL, and it goes on. ARRL needs to become PROactive, not reactive.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by W9HG on September 22, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I have spent hours sending letters to all the important leaders of the ARRL from the President, Jim Haynie, to the CEO Dave Sumner and down to the Section Director who was an original participant in this most last ditch effort to degrade the once great radio service we had which is already chopped up into a mumbo jumbo puzzle of who is who and what class are you license.

Names such as Extra light and Fully loaded Extra are being used and soon we will be headed for a no load General and Extra class license where no such a thing as earned are part of the upgrade requirements.

It will be another sad day for our great radio service when this is passed and it will happem in one form or another so be prepared for the end results.

When you give away the barn for a pipe dream of gaining more numbers of licenses in exchange for a free ride you are setting the stage for the final death of a once respected radio service.

Caring about numbers and not the desire to learn more about radio is a cheap and degrading form of covering up the real reasons for the change which is to keep the money flowing into the coffers of guess who?, without cash flow the ARRL will die and this is their way of trying to salvage their inevitable demise.

Howie, W9HG
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K3UD on September 22, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I will freely admit that I am most likely part of the 75+% of hams who do not completely understand the issues behind the bandwith proposal. However I think I have a fairly good take on what the ARRL has historically done when they want something to happen. (This is not to bash the ARRL, but sometimes they tend to be heavy handed)

Based on my ongoing research concerning Incentive Licensing (been studying it since it happened) I have come to the conclusion that a very similar approach is being used in the case of the bandwidth proposal.

My read on the bandwidth proposal is as follows:

1. It seems obvious that the committee (and perhaps the ARRL) wants protected spectrum to act as an incubator for digital modes.

2. As popularity grows, it comes out of the incubator into the other "unprotected" spectrum.

3. As interference problems crop up in the so called legacy segments, the thinking of some hams might be, well if we can't beat them, join them, which will accelerate the switch to digital.

Incentive Licensing was touted as a means to upgrade the skills (code proficiency, homebrewing, acceptance of new modes) of the entire body of hams. Sounded reasonable, but the means were fairly draconian.

1. Set up protected spectrum for exclusive use of Advanced and Extra Class amateurs. This was spectrum which was previously open to all General class and up licensees.

2. Push all of the Generals (and most of the HF nets) into drastically cut down frequency segments on the most popular bands.

3. Wait for the Generals to get tired of all the additional interference, wise up, and go after the higher class licenses so they could find open space in which to operate.

Back in the late 40s and through the 50s, the ARRL was pushing SSB as THE replacement for AM and as the answer for band crowding, but the conversion was not going fast enough.

Something like Incentive Licensing, and the relocation of amateurs who had all privileges into a kind of band segment hell, replete with nightmarish interference and forced segregation, with AM and SSB piled on top of each other would cause all of those techno neanderthals who had not made the switch to SSB to either do 1 of 2 things

A. Make the switch to SSB

B. Upgrade the license

There was also a third choice, and that was to drop out altogether, and some did.

This was a classic carrot and stick approach.

With the bandwidth proposal, the way I read it, the carrot is the protected frequencies, the stick is that no one else gets protected spectrum and if the interference between digital and legacy modes gets too bad, well, you can always go digital and use the protected spectrum.

Oddly enough, this will most likely cause more problems for Generals who use legacy modes than it will for Extras, as Extras have much more spectrum to work with. It might really be a killer for those who enter via the proposed beginner class with its very limited HF phone allocations.

The ARRL seems to think that digital is the future, and remember, the creation of the NCT was supposed to bring in the technos who would accelerate the movement to new modes. It did not happen at acceptable rates. So, we go back to the carrot and stick approach and set up the herding pens.

73
George
K3UD
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by NN6EE on September 22, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
RIGHT ON CHUCK!!! (N1OC?)

Either way Boys "CODE" will not disappear and those that are TRULY motivated WILL continue to learn it/use it/ and enjoy it!!!

You guys who don't wanna learn it then Jesus-Christ DON'T!!!

EASY AS THAT!!!

Jim/ee
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by RADIO123US on September 22, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
W9HG said "When you give away the barn for a pipe dream of gaining more numbers of licenses in exchange for a free ride you are setting the stage for the final death of a once respected radio service."

I agree....the ones that will ultimately kill ham radio are the ones that want to LOWER our standards (like the ARRL)...
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
It always amuses me to see people who think that E=IR is Ohm's law going on about "lowering" standards.

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AD6WL on September 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Here we go again with Marty's Law.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by WA1RNE on September 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
There goes that ham radio ego-superiority crap again...

* Technical + Morse proficiency = The "real" ham radio operator

*Technical minus morse proficiency = incompetence and a lesser qualified operator.

Now how mindless and stupid is this?

Like many things that are the product of the ARRL's logic, you need to take them a part periodically and analyze what you're really getting.

Using this criteria to obtain a license is almost totally contradictory.

Funny how Morse proficiency is such an "important" (?) enabler within the current licensing criteria.

Consider this:

** Once you master CW, it enables you to operate on HF PHONE - the exact opposite mode - along with expanded CW privileges. [Helloooooo?? anybody home???]

- and if it's so important, why only 5 WPM proficiency?? What avid dx'er or contester runs at this speed? That's right folks, you guessed it, nobody.

I get a real charge out of the references made to SSB and it being a waste of band space in comparison to CW. It just so happens that when any sort of real emergency communications is needed on HF, it's done via SSB, not CW or digital. It also takes up as much or less bandwidth than some data modes.

Whose kidding who here?? It's too bad this hobby is being misguided by such narrow-mindedness that isn't backed up by real facts that justify these positions.

Once again, I am not saying that we should delete CW. I would never say this because many of us still like to use it. It's cheap and easy to operate and for many ofd us, it's fun. I have used it for years and still can - and could pass the current license requirements and then some.

But is the current arrangement in our best interests and will it result in more ham radio operators and provide a better experience than if our licensing structure were changed and a better band plan devised?

Sorry, but with all due respect, if you think the answer is yes, your not being honest with yourself or your fellow hams.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by RADIO123US on September 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
AE6IP said "It always amuses me to see people who think that E=IR is Ohm's law going on about "lowering" standards."

What amuses me Marty is the folks that have been licensed for ONLY a SHORT period of time trying to set the standards for hams that have been licensed a LONG time.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AD6WL on September 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
RADIO123US, please don't get him started. He has made threads in the past unbearable for me to read. BTW, what was your call again? hihi.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> What amuses me Marty is the folks that have been
> licensed for ONLY a SHORT period of time trying to
> set the standards for hams that have been licensed a
> LONG time.

Well, we've known all along that you're partial to logical fallacies, so no surprise here.

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> RADIO123US, please don't get him started. He has
> made threads in the past unbearable for me to read.

Still haven't gotten around to learning Ohm's law?

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KC8TRL on September 24, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Code requirment is no more this is the 2000's wake up and smell the coffee code is no longer a requirment by the ITU.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by TECH2004 on September 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Good point, code is dead and should not be around anymore except for some old dinosours. There probably is no need for a code portion of the band anyomre. So we should free up space for us to use it more productivly on the phone bands and new digital modes.
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by K6USI on September 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Talk about Lic. Re-structuring and the use of wasted band space. If the FCC is going to give the license away, then why not grandfather the advance up into extra. At least we did 13 with 4 exams. (N)(T)(G)(A)
This is supposed to be a fun hobby, not brain surgery....73's
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> then why not grandfather the advance up into extra.

It's been done. You have to fill out a form, but if you can document that you have an advanced ticket, you can have an extra ticket by doing some paperwork.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by K6BBC on September 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Really, first I have ever heard of that. I would rather keep my Advanced Class anyway.

K6BBC
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by RADIO123US on September 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
AE6IP said "You have to fill out a form, but if you can document that you have an advanced ticket, you can have an extra ticket by doing some paperwork. "

Marty, you are wrong. You MUST take the Extra written exam to upgrade from Advanced to Extra.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
My mistake. I had misremembered 97.505.a.2 as giving credit for element 4. It does not.

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AD6WL on September 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I have to go mark my calendar. Marty couldn't BS his way out of that one.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Still haven't learned Ohm's law?
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AD6WL on September 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Sorry Marty, I'm not going for your bait. Goodbye.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I didn't think you had.
 
ARRL Band Plan (sort of hihi)  
by KH6ES on September 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Gentlemen,

This is not on subject, but it's interesting. In April, in 6Y5 with my cousin and her husband, none of us, all with different calling cards, could make them work. They were worried about their children. Either our phone cards were incompatible with Jamaica's overseas telephone service, or for whatever reason, we were incommunicado, telephonically. Nor were we able to call collect. I had my IC-735, a temporary license, a sked with NØSXX and an antenna in a palm tree. I communicated. He called the kids with our number at the villa. My cousin's kids landlined us and all was well. The sked happened to be on CW, but could have been SSB--except for a couple of days when the band was awful and only CW got through, and that, barely.

Sometimes, only code gets through. Anyway, I was a big dog and got free rum punches for a few days. Will this happen in 2050? I dunno--but I kinda hope so!

73, WUØH, Keith
 
ARRL Band Plan  
by W0FMS on September 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
The problem with it is that the FCC is going to likely throw it in the bucket. Why? They are trying to deregulate everything, including amateur radio. The ARRL plan is so complex that even as a EE who understands it all, I had to actually take time to analyze it to understand what they meant by all of it. It's not simple. It's not intuitive.

And w/o discussing the merits of CW vs. other digital modes, it seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to limit bandwidths in the CW portions of the band so that other digital modes (save maybe PSK31) are kept out.

I think the British ham is correct. We should handle the bandplans here w/o the FCC mandating it. It's time to stop artifically protecting CW. Or DSB AM or other legacy modes. I say let "market economics" decide the band use.

I don't really have anything against CW per-se, just to state this for reference with the group.

The comment about allowing 9 KHz DSB AM and not 6 KHz digital is also valid. If 9 KHz is allowed for AM, it should be for digital as well. A lot of nifty stuff can be done experimentally in that bandwidth that at this point would be illegal in the US. (But not in other places?!?)

Fred
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by RADIO123US on September 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
AE6IP said "My mistake. I had misremembered 97.505.a.2 as giving credit for element 4. It does not."

Marty, is this what you meant by logical fallacy ?
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> AE6IP said "My mistake. I had misremembered
> 97.505.a.2 as giving credit for element 4. It does
> not."

> Marty, is this what you meant by logical fallacy ?

No. This is an example of faulty memory.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html describes logic and fallacies.

The one you seem to most like to commit is "argumentum ad antiquitatem" although you usually present it in the form of its converse. Combined with "argumentum ad hominem" it plays well with the peanut gallary but makes no actual point.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by RADIO123US on September 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Sorry Marty, I'm NOT interested in your religious views (or your LACK of such views). The web site you mentioned is an atheism site, and I consider that to be totally OFF TOPIC here....I think even your so-called "peanut gallery" will agree with me here.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> Sorry Marty, I'm NOT interested in your religious
> views (or your LACK of such views).

The page in question has nothing to do with religion, or the lack thereof.

> The web site you mentioned is an atheism site, and I
> consider that to be totally OFF TOPIC here.

It happens to be the best page on logical arguments I've ever run across. That's on topic anywhere.

> I think even your so-called "peanut gallery" will
> agree with me here.

Well yeah, the peanut gallery would. Why bother to go look at the page (and in the process discover there's nothing about atheism on it) when you can play to broad emotions and derail the discussion?

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> Sorry Marty, I'm NOT interested in your religious
> views (or your LACK of such views).

The page in question has nothing to do with religion, or the lack thereof.

> The web site you mentioned is an atheism site, and I
> consider that to be totally OFF TOPIC here.

It happens to be the best page on logical arguments I've ever run across. That's on topic anywhere.

> I think even your so-called "peanut gallery" will
> agree with me here.

Well yeah, the peanut gallery would. Why bother to go look at the page (and in the process discover there's nothing about atheism on it) when you can play to broad emotions and derail the discussion?

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by RADIO123US on September 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
AE6IP said "It happens to be the best page on logical arguments I've ever run across. That's on topic anywhere"

Marty, here's my point, if your arguments are to have any validity at all, I would hope you could come up with better examples than on a site devoted to atheism... If your arguments are truly valid, I'm sure there will be sites all over the web to support your views.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by TECH2004 on September 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
i agree with ae6ip and his website about christianity. it was made to control people and it still is... if you dont agree with them then you get some christian kool-aid
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> Marty, here's my point, if your arguments are to
> have any validity at all, I would hope you could
> come up with better examples than on a site devoted
> to atheism...

That's quite a spin you put on that. Ever consider pitching in the majors?

> If your arguments are truly valid, I'm sure there
> will be sites all over the web to support your
> views.

Congratulations. Not only are you not responding to the topic in question, but you've demonstrated two more fallacies. Thank you for the excellent example.

For those who would rather have an explanation from a less "controversial" site, try http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

it'll help you understand how posters such as radio123us avoid addressing a topic by exploiting logical fallacies and other rhetorical devices.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> i agree with ae6ip and his website about
> christianity.

It's not my site, and it's not about Christianity.

The only part of it I endorse, by the way, is the logical argument faq page that I posted the URL for.

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by RADIO123US on September 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
AE6IP said "Congratulations. Not only are you not responding to the topic in question, but you've demonstrated two more fallacies. Thank you for the excellent example"

Marty, I took a look at this site. It looks like you would be guilty of "Argumentum ad logicam"...and I know from some of your previous posts you've been guilty of "Argumentum ad numerum" too...

So, I guess that makes us even....
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by RADIO123US on September 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
AE6IP said "it'll help you understand how posters such as radio123us avoid addressing a topic by exploiting logical fallacies and other rhetorical devices"

Marty, the bottom line is, you do NOT respect those of us that have MANY more years of experience in this hobby than you. You may be more educated, and MIGHT even be a better at debates too, but the one that TRULY wins the debate is the one that EARNS the respect of those he is debating. You will NEVER earn any respect by constantly trying to trash everyone that disagrees with you. In doing this, arn't you committing the same offense..."Argumentum ad hominem" that you are accusing me of ?
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> Marty, the bottom line is, you do NOT respect those
> of us that have MANY more years of experience in
> this hobby than you.

There's a very good example of a hasty generalization. Thanks.

I respect many hams who have many more years of experience in the hobby. Some of them are on this board, others, like Lenord, W6IO, who taught me how to learn Morse Code, are not.

But we're back to your original mistake in arguments.

Longevity does not equate to expertise. So, no, I don't respect people *merely* because they have more time in the hobby than myself. Wrong reason to respect someone.

> You may be more educated, and MIGHT even be a better
> at debates too, but the one that TRULY wins the
> debate is the one that EARNS the respect of those he
> is debating.

You forgot 'more experienced'. One of the blindspots that many amateur radio operators have is the mistaken assumption that the only radio experience applicable to understanding ham radio is gained in ham radio.

As far as "winning" debates, not really, no. Debates are "won" by the party who plays best to the audience. Respect has very little to do with it. I'm not particularly interested in winning debates. I am far more interested in well thought out ideas, clearly expressed.

By the way, earning respect goes both ways. You have done nothing to earn mine, online, for example, and so don't have it, nor are you likely to receive it without a significant change in your approach on eHam.

> You will NEVER earn any respect by constantly trying
> to trash everyone that disagrees with you.

This is true. Of course, I *don't* trash 'everyone'. Rarely do I stray from the subject to the individual. Something I wish more people who accuse me of 'trashing' others would learn to do.

> In doing this, arn't you committing the same
> offense..."Argumentum ad hominem" that you are
> accusing me of ?

If I were to do this, indeed, I would be. Well, there's one circumstance in which argumentum ad hominem is *not* a fallacy. (Do you know what it is?)

What does happen, I've noticed frequently, is that individuals have difficulty distinguishing a comment raised against their argument from a comment raised against themselves.

If you want _my_ respect, it is very simple to come by: make your case clearly, based on logic, and without rhetorical device. Acknowledge weakness in your argument when it is pointed out. Admit error. Strive for understanding, not to score points. Take no offense from having your ideas challenged. This is how to become respected online.

In person, face to face, there are other considerations, but we're not face to face.

One other, rather harsh, comment about respect. I find no interest in earning the respect of those who are unlikely to earn mine; and I find no problem earning the respect of those whom I wish it from.

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> AE6IP said "Congratulations. Not only are you not
> responding to the topic in question, but you've
> demonstrated two more fallacies. Thank you for the
> excellent example"

> Marty, I took a look at this site. It looks like you
> would be guilty of "Argumentum ad logicam"...and I
> know from some of your previous posts you've been
> guilty of "Argumentum ad numerum" too...

You need to look at the site again. You've missed rather a key point in what it takes to commit a fallacy in argumentation.

Although I *do* plead guilty to the use of a rhetorical device or two in the above quote.

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AD6WL on September 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I see that you all have fallen for his bait. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by RADIO123US on September 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
AD6WL, No, I've not fallen for his bait, I wanted him to clearly admit how her feels about others like us on this site. It looks like he did that very well...

AE6IP: "Longevity does not equate to expertise. So, no, I don't respect people *merely* because they have more time in the hobby than myself. Wrong reason to respect someone."

He obviously NEVER learned "respect your elders"...
..and then he is asking us to do the following"

AE6IP: "make your case clearly, based on logic, and without rhetorical device. Acknowledge weakness in your argument when it is pointed out. Admit error. Strive for understanding"

This is something he has CLEARLY been unwilling to do himself. So, I actually find his responses quite amusing....
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by AE6IP on September 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> He obviously NEVER learned "respect your elders"...

Let me slow it down for you. "respect your elders" is about being courteous. It is *not* about defering to the opinions of someone merely because they are older.

This is the mistake you keep making, to equate the two.

Respect is earned, and you have earned none. But I *do* admire your ability at playing rhetorical games.
That you are good at.

 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by OO1TRK on September 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
This topic is almost as posted to as the old truckers and 10-meters is, this has been great reading, time for another beer, BTW this is for this debate that includes Marty (Don't know who Marty is, and this is in fun)



What Do You Call Four Bullfighters In Quicksand?





Quattro Sinko.




Ohm, yeah, topic... Ummm I still think code requirement should be deleted....


Ok, now time for that Corona.

Cheers
 
RE: ARRL Band Plan  
by KC8Y on January 4, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I totally agree, in bringing back 20 & 13 wpm for general & extras...
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other Recent Articles
London Hams Bridge Communication Gap:
Conversations With the World:
Malaysia's Over 11,000 Radio Ham Operators Can Offer Help In Emergencies:
WIA: Temporary Reassignment of Commercial Services into 70cm:
Army MARS at the ARRL Convention: