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

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: FISTS FCC Submission  (Read 1975 times)
W3ULS
Member

Posts: 74




Ignore
« on: September 01, 2003, 03:03:45 PM »

The FISTS submission to the FCC now available on the web looks backward rather than forward. First and foremost, FISTS' submission gives the back of its hand to the ARRL's 2002 proposal to make Novice/Tech-with-code certificate CW priviliges coterminous with the General Class bands. The ARRL's proposal, which is not even referenced by FISTS, clearly is designed to encourage CW operating and to generate an interest in the mode by Technician licensees by making it possible for them to have CW contacts in parts of the HF bands where QSO's actually take place rather than remain isolated as they are now in the Siberia of the current Novice/Tech HF subbands.

But FISTS says strangely the FCC should keep the Novice/Tech CW subbands as is--and, of course, retain the 5 wpm code test. It suggests adding RTTY and other digital modes as permissible, but only in the current subbands. And it states Novice/Techs should not be awarded SSB privileges in any of the HF bands, something that has been proposed on a limited basis by this ham among others.

Further, FISTS says the authority to write ham exams should be taken away from the Volunteer Examiner Coordinators and their recent recommendations regarding eliminating the code test altogether should be ignored. Still further, it says the FCC should write the exams, and start out by making the Extra Class exam tougher, and be accompanied by a mandatory 12 wpm code test. By being tougher, FISTS says it means requiring that hams show proficiency in the design of software-defined radio circuits and the digital modes, among other things. Altogether, the aim of the FISTS submission seems to be to reduce the number of new amateur radio licenses granted by a significant order of magnitude.

It is unfortunate that one key issue affecting all CW ops was NOT addressed by the FISTS submittal. That is, whether in the future there should be any HF CW subbands at all. Pressure is mounting from users of other modes to be able to utilize more of the HF bands now assigned to CW. Some of us feel that strong support is needed to show the FCC that the CW subbands be continued as an FCC-mandated set-aside. Perhaps FISTS is indifferent to this issue, or perhaps it assumes that everyone at the FCC appreciates the value of CW so much that the agency would never think of reducing or eliminating the current CW subband allocations. I wonder about that.

IMHO, making sure there continue to be ample CW subbands on HF is a far more important issue than the dead horse of code testing FISTS is beating.

 

Logged
WA9SVD
Member

Posts: 2198




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2003, 04:55:47 PM »

FISTS has made some good points; some bad.  But I fear FISTS and NCI will drag this out into the 23rd Century.
    Both sides make blanket statements that can't, or haven't been proven.  What we need is a plan that everyone can LIVE with, even if it's not 100% to their liking.  (Sorry if that sounds like COMPROMISE, but that's what's usually necessary when two sides disagree.)
Logged
N1EA
Member

Posts: 23


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2003, 08:18:24 PM »

W3ULS said:  "Altogether, the aim of the FISTS submission seems to be to reduce the number of new amateur radio licenses granted by a significant order of magnitude."

N1EA comments:

Perhaps the aim of FISTS was to ensure qualified individuals ENTER the Amateur Radio Service.  Remember, when licensing began around 1920 by the Dept. of Commerce, tests were administered to let QUALIFIED people in.  The tests still have that requirement.

W3ULS said:  "It is unfortunate that one key issue affecting all CW ops was NOT addressed by the FISTS submittal. That is, whether in the future there should be any HF CW subbands at all."

N1EA comments:  At present there are NO CW sub-bands as CW (A1 emission) can be used on ALL and ANY amateur frequencies, with the exception of the new 5 MHz channels.  Radiotelephony, Radioprinter, Television transmission modes are the only ones with sub bands.

Best Wishes,

David J. Ring, Jr., N1EA
Logged
N8UZE
Member

Posts: 1524




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2003, 02:00:59 PM »

Actually there are two segments liminted to CW ONLY.  They are 50.0 to 50.1 megahertz and 144.0 and 144.1 megahertz.  No other modes are allowed in these segments, not even digital.
Logged
N1EA
Member

Posts: 23


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2003, 03:14:44 PM »

But what I said is that there are no CW sub bands.

Sub means "under" - Radiotelephony modes (AM, SSB, NBFM, and SSTV and FAX) can be used in a sub-band of the amateur band.

A1 telegraphy can be used throughout the entire amateur band - it is not restricted to a "sub band".

That is my point - there are NO CW (A1A emission) sub bands.

So asking for "protection" of the "CW sub bands" in the FISTS petition was premature because no CW sub bands currently exist.

73

David J. Ring, Jr., N1EA
http://www.qsl.net/n1ea
Logged
W3ULS
Member

Posts: 74




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2003, 05:13:34 PM »

Hello, Dave (N1EA):

You are making a valid point re the nonexistence of formal CW subbands. My point about creating some CW subbands on HF is that I smell "encroachment."  In football, that's a five-yard penalty. I have the feeling that non-CW mode enthusiasts want to "encroach" into the parts of HF bands where CW RTTY holds sway--not by law but by agreement, and the best way to ensure a continuation of a robust CW presence is to obtain a guarantee that some HF areas (hopefully significant chunks of kHz) are reserved for CW. Maybe we CW types do not need this kind of governmental protection but, as I said, I sense encroachment coming. (I don't regard the current authorization of CW in the portions of the HF subbands where phone and image transmissions are allowed as being particularly valuable for CW.) This has been discussed on the CW reflector, as you know, and not just by me.

As to the FISTS petition, if in fact the petition asks for "protection of CW subbands," then this represents just another gaffe in a perplexingly faulty filing.

 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!