ARRL Bulletin on Morse Code Elimination

[N7YP]

I KEEP LOOKING IN THE FCC DECISION TO DROP OUR MORSE CODE,IN ALL OF ITS NOTICES FOR THE R&O,I FAIL TO FIND ONE WORD ABOUT THE( CBers options),OUR CODE AND THE REASONS WE LEARNED IT WILL SURVIVE,NOW ABOUT BPL,MERRY XMAS,JACK/N7YP

[w3dms]

End of an Era:
FCC to Drop Morse Testing for All Amateur License Classes (Dec 15, 2006)
Look at any forum on the internet( E-HAM, QRZ, FOX TANGO, etc. )
You'll see the same whining and complaining.
The finger pointing, the back stabbing.
The name calling.
The bigoted remarks.
Is this what Amateur Radio stands for ?
Check out these numbers.
An F.C.C. license search, today, shows 723,060, active, Amateur Licenses.
The F.C.C. reports it received some 6,200 comments on the WT Docket 05-235, the "Morse code" proceeding.
So, some simple math, 716,860 of you, did absolutely nothing about it, and now you want to complain.
You talk about the NoCodeTech sitting on their butts, waiting for morse code to be dropped.
You talk about how you "earned" your license and they didn't.
What did you do, to stop it ?
You sat on your butts and let it happen !
Did you send a comment to the F.C.C. ?
Did you start a petition and collect signitures to stop it ?
I think 716,860 of you have got nothing to say !
Morse Code was doomed in the 1930's with the developement of SSB.
You want to turn your radio off? Turn it off.
If you want to use morse code? Use it.
Get a life.

[dl6maa]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 17 2006,08:35)] PacTOR III consumes as much as 3kHz and they've GOT to have those PMBO autobots for handling WinLink.
Stop spreading inaccurate/false information on PACTOR!
PACTOR-III (P3) occpuies 2.2 kHz (-25 dB) at maximum bandwidth on Speedlevel (SL) 6. As SL6 is the highest SL, it is only chosen under rare / very good signal conditions (high SNR, low distortion). The lower 5 PACTOR-III SL's need LESS THAN 2 kHz! P3 always requires less bandwidth than an average analog voice signal.
There is no need to discriminate state-of-the-art digital modes. They are a viable part of the current and future Amateur Radio Service. We all have already understood that you dislike PACTOR, your campaign is getting boring! (Your postings give the impression that you don't like other poeple's success. Good tip: Don't waste your time writing useless letters to the FCC.) Repeating your nonsense again and again does not make things better. BTW, WinLink PMBO's do only start chirping when a human operator (who has to listen first!) initiates the contact. Bad operating skills are not a matter of a certain mode. Of course, there is the "hidden station" problem when a transmitter is triggered from remote but in practice at least 90 % of all "collisions" are caused due to bad operating skills. It is very unlikely that the operator who wants to initiate a contact does not hear at least one of the two (or more) stations that already use the actual channel. I am a CW enthusiast and can tell you a lot about QRM caused by wider bandwidth modes - only grouping similar modes (e. g. similar bandwidth) on same band segments can at least partially solve the mutual QRM problem.

.-.-. ...-.-

de Peter, DL6MAA

[wa4gch]

Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ Dec. 17 2006,09:55)]Quote[/b] (wa4gch @ Dec. 17 2006,03:34)]Quote[/b] (k7duv @ Dec. 17 2006,01:23)]I will still study code. I just learned the other night on 2m SSB just how important it really is....
Your right anyone who works weak signal VHF/UHF understands how well CW works.
As a long time 6 meter user but not a CW person I've seen many a contact made with a good old j-38 ....

CW will not die it will regain intrest with thoes who will find out sometimes it's the only way to work them.

Bruce SMIRK# 70
ON 6 SINCE 66
( hello #Bruce merry xmas to you , Bill kd4mxe http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
hello bill and i hope santa is good ....

[n9pfc]

Chamge is a part of life. Sometimes we're frustrated because change seems slow in coming. Sometimes, too, we're resistant to change that seems to have been thrust upon us. We must remember that change, in and of itself, neither binds us or frees us. Only our attitude toward change binds or frees. As we learn to flow with the stream of life, praying, also, for guidance if we want to make a change and noe seems in the view- we become willing. Am I willing to accept change, directing me in the changes I should make and the actions I should take? If it makes live better for those involved it will present its self in happness or sorrow!
No matter what the topic is
!

[n1tko]

After all is said and done, I hope the no-code ruling doesn't change amateur radio for the worse. Myself, I couldn't stand the code... until I got good at it and then I put my mic away for a long time. I hope some people will explore it on their own. Its like a new language and is really fun, not to mention how you can impress your friends!!
Merry Christmas everyone. I am enjoying the Heck out of this forum.... lots of good people.

de WB1CAX

[K1MVP]

Quote[/b] (kc2pfx @ Dec. 17 2006,10:46)]End of an Era:
FCC to Drop Morse Testing for All Amateur License Classes (Dec 15, 2006)

Check out these numbers.
An F.C.C. license search, today, shows 723,060, active, Amateur Licenses.
The F.C.C. reports it received some 6,200 comments on the WT Docket 05-235, the "Morse code" proceeding.
So, some simple math, 716,860 of you, did absolutely nothing about it, and now you want to complain.
You talk about the NoCodeTech sitting on their butts, waiting for morse code to be dropped.
You talk about how you "earned" your license and they didn't.
What did you do, to stop it ?
You sat on your butts and let it happen !
Did you send a comment to the F.C.C. ?
Did you start a petition and collect signitures to stop it ?
I think 716,860 of you have got nothing to say !
Morse Code was doomed in the 1930's with the developement of SSB.
You want to turn your radio off? Turn it off.
If you want to use morse code? Use it.
Get a life.
Ok,--lets check out the "numbers" as you say, #of over
700,000 hams,--over half of of them are Tech`s,
NCT`s, lifetime "novices" etc.

Of the approx 300,000 other licensee`s left, how many
belong to the ARRL, and are active?
It seems to me I read recently, only about 120,000
belong to the ARRL,--thats less than 20% of so called
"licensed" hams,--not exactly a "big time' enrollment.

AS far as submitting comments,--some of us did,--I did,
on the restucturing petitons, by the ARRL, RAF, and
NCVEC, and also the bandwidth AND CW proposals,
for all the "good" it did,--You can look mine up on the
EFCS "comments retrival" FCC website under my call
or under my name.

The net result is,--this "train" of "dumbing down"
HR has been "moving on" for some time and continues
to "move", in spite of what many hams think.
"HAM CB" is right around the "corner",--and thats
considered "progess", in the view of many.
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # # 73,"good buddy", K1MVP

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (dl6maa @ Dec. 16 2006,12:51)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 17 2006,08:35)] PacTOR III consumes as much as 3kHz and they've GOT to have those PMBO autobots for handling WinLink.
Stop spreading inaccurate/false information on PACTOR!
PACTOR-III (P3) occpuies 2.2 kHz (-25 dB) at maximum bandwidth on Speedlevel (SL) 6. As SL6 is the highest SL, it is only chosen under rare / very good signal conditions (high SNR, low distortion). The lower 5 PACTOR-III SL's need LESS THAN 2 kHz! P3 always requires less bandwidth than an average analog voice signal.
There is no need to discriminate state-of-the-art digital modes. They are a viable part of the current and future Amateur Radio Service. We all have already understood that you dislike PACTOR, your campaign is getting boring! (Your postings give the impression that you don't like other poeple's success. Good tip: Don't waste your time writing useless letters to the FCC.) Repeating your nonsense again and again does not make things better. BTW, WinLink PMBO's do only start chirping when a human operator (who has to listen first!) initiates the contact. Bad operating skills are not a matter of a certain mode. Of course, there is the "hidden station" problem when a transmitter is triggered from remote but in practice at least 90 % of all "collisions" are caused due to bad operating skills. It is very unlikely that the operator who wants to initiate a contact does not hear at least one of the two (or more) stations that already use the actual channel. I am a CW enthusiast and can tell you a lot about QRM caused by wider bandwidth modes - only grouping similar modes (e. g. similar bandwidth) on same band segments can at least partially solve the mutual QRM problem.

.-.-. ...-.-

de Peter, DL6MAA
Hello, Peter. You are the owner of SCS, are you not? Are you concerned that the truth (about loophole regulations) will impact your sales?

The ultimate bandwidth of P(3) may just be a bit under 3kHz. But that's a WHOLE LOT WIDER THAN 500HZ!!!

As to the rest, well, telling me not to file motions, petitions and the like with the FCC is a waste of your time. You are not a United States Citizen. I am. It is my right to, when permitted by law, to express my opinions and concerns. I feel especially compelled to do so when regulations are skirted through poor or outmoded definitions as they have been with respect to digital multi-carrier modes such as J2D.

You have the smarts to understand that there is no bandwidth limit on J2D. And, instead of 16 carriers, how many will your next version have..... 32, 48, 96? And, with an occupied bandwidth of 10, 20 or 50kHz? No problema. As long as you stay under a symbol rate of 300 Baud.

As to your operating 'instructions' for PMBO's, well, its my understanding that yes, one of the stations has to be controlled by an operator. The other, doesn't. So, perhaps 97.221 does apply, with its 500Hz bandwidth limit. So, tell us, Peter, how even at just over 2kHz, how do your SCS boxes comply with 97.221 when in automatic mode, employing PacTOR III?

Be happy that your drones at ARRL have gotten 15kHz of 80 meters set aside for autobots. A maximum of 5 connects is about it, though, Peter, since they're pretty wide. They tried for 11 (35kHz) but, the FCC wouldn't budge.

Tell us, has the FCC purchased many of your SCS modems yet? They should. At least that way they'll be able to identify who is violating 97.221.


73,

[KE7JFA]

Excellent. I love it when a plan comes together!
It is about time code is dropped. It is old and outdated.
Times change and things change. Gas is not .5 a gallon anymore. Cars go 100,000 plus without a tune up nowadays.
Voice transmissions have been improving over the years because of technology advances.
If you want to use CW, go ahead. I would never interfere with a CW transmission using voice.
This will HELP ham radio and manufacures. Maybe the prices will come down to a realistic price for an HF rig.
Only thing I can see code for is if you are stuck down a mineshaft or aliens invade earth and do not know code.

[kb9ygd]

[B][I]I am not sure if dropping the cw requirment will help amateur radios dwindling numbers.I am sure that there are many amateurs who look at cw as worthless without even giving the mode a chance & dont even give it a 2nd thought.As with anything in life i am of the opinion that a person should earn whatever he/she gets & ham radio is no exception.I am also of the opinion that dedicated hams do cw,keep detailed logbooks & qsl 100% and that there should be some machanism in place in the tests that insure that we dont populate our ranks with those that are unfit to be an amateur radio operator or to lazy and want something just handed to them without any effort at all on their part.73,de kb9ygdMy Webpage (http://mysite.verizon.net/res868sp/thetriantafilosfamily/index.html)

[KD8AZQ]

You know the next thing to go is the CW ID. No one going to be able to tell what repeater there listening to. It will become VOR Voice over Repeater-ID. Just goes to show you the F.C.C. has been invaded by the " I want something for nothing" generation. What a shame. Long live CW, Any on can Talk. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[N8PU]

One thing to keep in mind is that everyone that has a ham license is just as much a ham as the next person, it just doesn't matter if you had to build a radio and pass what ever the test was in front of a FCC representative or if you were in front of a VEC examiner, the license is just a valid. We all had to pass the requirements that were in place at the time we tested; So stop your whining and start elerming those that are just joining the ranks of the amateur radio operator. Maybe if you start doing that you just might help them be a better radio operator.

[wa4gch]

73,"good buddy", K1MVP

You got your 75 meter ears on ?

[km5tn]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif it going to be alright...

[n6kzb]

CW does not make you a real ham.

Accept that change is progress and sometimes needed. If you like CW, that is great, if not so what. There is much in the service to offer a slice for everyone. The bands are not going to die; the world is not going to end.

And for those that think CW is some system to weed out the riff raff, just listen to the long time 80, 40, and 20 meter "crap” nets. Yes, long time hams, with plenty of CW under their respective belts, and look what they do with it.

Tradition is wonderful, and just like AM, many will still use CW. Welcome the new changes with an open attitude, and stop the crying.

CW does not make a better person, adherence to good amateur practice does.

So get off that kick.

Move on and live.. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[dl6maa]

Lee,

Quote[/b] ]
You are the owner of SCS, are you not? #Are you concerned that the truth (about loophole regulations) will impact your sales?


I wonder how YOU can talk about "truth". I simply ask you to stop spreading wrong information about the mode I developed.

Quote[/b] ]
The ultimate bandwidth of P(3) may just be a bit under 3kHz. #But that's a WHOLE LOT WIDER THAN 500HZ!!!


Your scare tactic is to tell people that PACTOR-III used huge amounts of spectrum due to its extraordinary bandwidth requirements ("more than 3 kHz"). The truth is that P3 usually occupies roughly 2 kHz just like MT63, digital voice, CLOVER-2000, and other modes. So what?

Quote[/b] ]
As to the rest, well, telling me not to file motions, petitions and the like with the FCC is a waste of your time. #You are not a United States Citizen. #I am. #It is my right to, when permitted by law, to express my opinions and concerns. #I feel especially compelled to do so when regulations are skirted through poor or outmoded definitions as they have been with respect to digital multi-carrier modes such as J2D.


Yes, it is your right but your biased, one-sided view of things is embarrassing - as well as your very inaccurate and false technical statements are. Just stop your anti-PACTOR campaign! BTW, also foreign persons have the right to write to the FCC. (I visited the United States several times and was impressed how liberal the American people are. You obviously are an exception.)

Quote[/b] ]
You have the smarts to understand that there is no bandwidth limit on J2D. #And, instead of 16 carriers, how many will your next version have..... 32, 48, 96? #And, with an occupied bandwidth of 10, 20 or 50kHz? #No problema. #As long as you stay under a symbol rate of 300 Baud.


The 300 Bd regulation is obsolete regarding modern digital modes (PSK) using steep filters for smoothing the symbols. It certainly was useful 20 years ago when only FSK was available - in order to avoid spectral spill-over.
Concerning your hypothetical statements about future modes: What transceivers do you suggest for 10 oder 50 kHz wide modes?? Should the users remove the IF filters? A wider bandwidth only makes sense if the SNR is sufficient. 2 kHz of bandwidth has proven to be a very good compromise for average amateur signals.

Quote[/b] ]
As to your operating 'instructions' for PMBO's, well, its my understanding that yes, one of the stations has to be controlled by an operator. #The other, doesn't. #So, perhaps 97.221 does apply, with its 500Hz bandwidth limit. #So, tell us, Peter, how even at just over 2kHz, how do your SCS boxes comply with 97.221 when in automatic mode, employing PacTOR III?


Aha, now you again try to split hair? A PMBO NEVER automatically starts a transmission. A contact is ALWAYS initiated by a (remote) operator. Period.

Quote[/b] ]
Be happy that your drones at ARRL have gotten 15kHz of 80 meters set aside for autobots. #A maximum of 5 connects is about it, though, Peter, since they're pretty wide. #They tried for 11 (35kHz) but, the FCC wouldn't budge.
[/qoute]

There is enough room for all.

[quote]
Tell us, has the FCC purchased many of your SCS modems yet? #They should. #At least that way they'll be able to identify who is violating 97.221.


Of course, millions!

Peter

[n6kzb]

Quote[/b] (dl6maa @ Dec. 17 2006,10:51)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 17 2006,08:35)] PacTOR III consumes as much as 3kHz and they've GOT to have those PMBO autobots for handling WinLink.
Stop spreading inaccurate/false information on PACTOR!
PACTOR-III (P3) occpuies 2.2 kHz (-25 dB) at maximum bandwidth on Speedlevel (SL) 6. As SL6 is the highest SL, it is only chosen under rare / very good signal conditions (high SNR, low distortion). The lower 5 PACTOR-III SL's need LESS THAN 2 kHz! P3 always requires less bandwidth than an average analog voice signal.
There is no need to discriminate state-of-the-art digital modes. They are a viable part of the current and future Amateur Radio Service. We all have already understood that you dislike PACTOR, your campaign is getting boring! (Your postings give the impression that you don't like other poeple's success. Good tip: Don't waste your time writing useless letters to the FCC.) Repeating your nonsense again and again does not make things better. BTW, WinLink PMBO's do only start chirping when a human operator (who has to listen first!) initiates the contact. Bad operating skills are not a matter of a certain mode. Of course, there is the "hidden station" problem when a transmitter is triggered from remote but in practice at least 90 % of all "collisions" are caused due to bad operating skills. It is very unlikely that the operator who wants to initiate a contact does not hear at least one of the two (or more) stations that already use the actual channel. I am a CW enthusiast and can tell you a lot about QRM caused by wider bandwidth modes - only grouping similar modes (e. g. similar bandwidth) on same band segments can at least partially solve the mutual QRM problem.

.-.-. ...-.-

de Peter, DL6MAA
And now that Pactor 3 has by name been codified in the US by the FCC, and is soon back to full use in semi-automatic as before, all is OK again.
(and the other wide modes like Olivia, Clover, MT63, etc).

Relax, like no-code, the soothsayers of doom are in the minority, and the bands will survive. That is the wonderful aspect of the service, change finds a way to work.

Enjoy the new band changes, enjoy the new HF operators, enjoy the service. It is done, and life goes on.

Merry Christmas. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[W4MOW]

The elimination of the CW requirements is just the first step. The next is to do away with the CW sub bands when the phone bands become clogged. Welcome to all the frustrated CBer's. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[n6kzb]

Lee,

Quote[/b] ]
You are the owner of SCS, are you not? #Are you concerned that the truth (about loophole regulations) will impact your sales?


I wonder how YOU can talk about "truth". I simply ask you to stop spreading wrong information about the mode I developed.

Quote[/b] ]
The ultimate bandwidth of P(3) may just be a bit under 3kHz. #But that's a WHOLE LOT WIDER THAN 500HZ!!!


Your scare tactic is to tell people that PACTOR-III used huge amounts of spectrum due to its extraordinary bandwidth requirements ("more than 3 kHz"). The truth is that P3 usually occupies roughly 2 kHz just like MT63, digital voice, CLOVER-2000, and other modes. So what?

Quote[/b] ]
As to the rest, well, telling me not to file motions, petitions and the like with the FCC is a waste of your time. #You are not a United States Citizen. #I am. #It is my right to, when permitted by law, to express my opinions and concerns. #I feel especially compelled to do so when regulations are skirted through poor or outmoded definitions as they have been with respect to digital multi-carrier modes such as J2D.


Yes, it is your right but your biased, one-sided view of things is embarrassing - as well as your very inaccurate and false technical statements are. Just stop your anti-PACTOR campaign! BTW, also foreign persons have the right to write to the FCC. (I visited the United States several times and was impressed how liberal the American people are. You obviously are an exception.)

Quote[/b] ]
You have the smarts to understand that there is no bandwidth limit on J2D. #And, instead of 16 carriers, how many will your next version have..... 32, 48, 96? #And, with an occupied bandwidth of 10, 20 or 50kHz? #No problema. #As long as you stay under a symbol rate of 300 Baud.


The 300 Bd regulation is obsolete regarding modern digital modes (PSK) using steep filters for smoothing the symbols. It certainly was useful 20 years ago when only FSK was available - in order to avoid spectral spill-over.
Concerning your hypothetical statements about future modes: What transceivers do you suggest for 10 oder 50 kHz wide modes?? Should the users remove the IF filters? A wider bandwidth only makes sense if the SNR is sufficient. 2 kHz of bandwidth has proven to be a very good compromise for average amateur signals.

Quote[/b] ]
As to your operating 'instructions' for PMBO's, well, its my understanding that yes, one of the stations has to be controlled by an operator. #The other, doesn't. #So, perhaps 97.221 does apply, with its 500Hz bandwidth limit. #So, tell us, Peter, how even at just over 2kHz, how do your SCS boxes comply with 97.221 when in automatic mode, employing PacTOR III?


Aha, now you again try to split hair? A PMBO NEVER automatically starts a transmission. A contact is ALWAYS initiated by a (remote) operator. Period.

Quote[/b] ]
Be happy that your drones at ARRL have gotten 15kHz of 80 meters set aside for autobots. #A maximum of 5 connects is about it, though, Peter, since they're pretty wide. #They tried for 11 (35kHz) but, the FCC wouldn't budge.
[/qoute]

There is enough room for all.

[QUOTE=Quote ]
Tell us, has the FCC purchased many of your SCS modems yet? #They should. #At least that way they'll be able to identify who is violating 97.221.


Of course, millions!

Peter
Peter, don't waste your time on these folks, they are a small minority. The fact that the dust is about to settle just proves there is room for many modes. Pactor 3 and WinLink is just a small aspect of the amateur available methodologies.

And as can be seen by this small minority, they never owned, operated, or cared to learn about WinLink, yet they speak with such authority.

Now that it is done, lets move forward with the fine sprit that is amateur radio and accept that CW is no longer a licensing requirement, and that Pactor 3 is not going away.

The sky will not fall; CW does not make you a better ham, as only good amateur practice will. And Pactor 3 will not cause cancer or stunted growth.

Merry Christmas to us all……….
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KE4EX]

The Friendly Candy Company is dropping the CW testing requirements, HOWEVER if you want to know code you will know code...

Well, I guess it had to happen sooner or later. You know, I get bothered when I hear grown adults crying or complaining about the difficulty or usefulness of CW. A standard 10 or 15 wpm would have been, whoa stop, wake up my man... Its over, done fini, okay. Now the NO code types can paint over the little cw key on their rigs (er-Radios) and dance a jig. CW or not the rookie hams are only as good as their elders. Please lets not forget the positive support this hobby needs, CW or no CW. Now the FCC can drop a #lot of paper work trying to manage the chase.

We might get more hams on the bands. More arguments to listen to. In any case when the non cw types hear that strange dit dot dit dit and wonder what’s up ? Ask a real ham for assistance.....::D
73 (not 73's) Not seventy thirds...

To all the folks who have threatened to leave ham radio if the code was ever dropped, feel-free to list your gear here: http://members6.boardhost.com/theswapshoppe

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Dec. 16 2006,10:21)]To the point made by WC5B
Quote[/b] ]You have to feel for them in this one no matter how you feel on this one. Its a no win situation.

Tom , I feel contempt for the current leadership in Newington. They are spineless and lost.

There are ways to "win" the reapportionment of boundries on the HF bands, and the FCC has taken careful consideration of public Comments that were filed. The most persuasive Comments did NOT come from people at the ARRL, and that's why the leadership of that group is so bitter.

They have lost the mandate they once held of being the steward for the Amateur Service. More and more people are stepping around them and making proposals that are logical, broad-thinking and progressive. The FCC's analysts see the difference, and they now put the rest of us on an equal level for consideration as anything that might come from the ARRL.

Anyone, including industry outsiders, looking at the ARRL's formal, legal filings with the FCC (they're all on the FCC website) will see a combative, confused attorney who is apparently taking orders from people who don't know how to finesse a federal agency, or are so arrogant as to think their tactics of persuasion are effective.

There needs to be a wholesale change of League leadership and an overhaul of the system that insulates the ARRL from the amateur community if the League is to ever resume its leadership role.

Today's combination of a disconnected system and narrow minded, tired old leadership enables back room, secret deliberations that we are left to react to rather than participate within.

The FCC sees this and will continue to hand the ARRL setbacks if anyone else takes time to come up with better plans or points out why the League is a mistake.

It's regrettable that the ARRL's fortunes have slipped as far as they have (subscriptions have fallen to less than 1 in 5 licensed Amateurs), but when they keep yelling and shaking their fists to no effect, maybe they will realize at least some of criticism out here is valid.

Paul/VJB
Paul,

Your description of the League and its present day situation is correct. They are lost.

Over the past few years, they have not, or just pretended to gather, the opinions of its long-time members -- supplanting learned majority opinions with their own in-house, special-interest and self-preservation missives.

Despite a potentially slight "up tick" in membership due to the Morse code's loss, I foresee their membership continuing to decline over the years.

They've lost this long-standing member.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (dl6maa @ Dec. 17 2006,12:39)]Lee,

Quote[/b] ]
You are the owner of SCS, are you not? Are you concerned that the truth (about loophole regulations) will impact your sales?


I wonder how YOU can talk about "truth". I simply ask you to stop spreading wrong information about the mode I developed.

Quote[/b] ]
The ultimate bandwidth of P(3) may just be a bit under 3kHz. But that's a WHOLE LOT WIDER THAN 500HZ!!!


Your scare tactic is to tell people that PACTOR-III used huge amounts of spectrum due to its extraordinary bandwidth requirements ("more than 3 kHz"). The truth is that P3 usually occupies roughly 2 kHz just like MT63, digital voice, CLOVER-2000, and other modes. So what?

Quote[/b] ]
As to the rest, well, telling me not to file motions, petitions and the like with the FCC is a waste of your time. You are not a United States Citizen. I am. It is my right to, when permitted by law, to express my opinions and concerns. I feel especially compelled to do so when regulations are skirted through poor or outmoded definitions as they have been with respect to digital multi-carrier modes such as J2D.


Yes, it is your right but your biased, one-sided view of things is embarrassing - as well as your very inaccurate and false technical statements are. Just stop your anti-PACTOR campaign! BTW, also foreign persons have the right to write to the FCC. (I visited the United States several times and was impressed how liberal the American people are. You obviously are an exception.)

Quote[/b] ]
You have the smarts to understand that there is no bandwidth limit on J2D. And, instead of 16 carriers, how many will your next version have..... 32, 48, 96? And, with an occupied bandwidth of 10, 20 or 50kHz? No problema. As long as you stay under a symbol rate of 300 Baud.


The 300 Bd regulation is obsolete regarding modern digital modes (PSK) using steep filters for smoothing the symbols. It certainly was useful 20 years ago when only FSK was available - in order to avoid spectral spill-over.
Concerning your hypothetical statements about future modes: What transceivers do you suggest for 10 oder 50 kHz wide modes?? Should the users remove the IF filters? A wider bandwidth only makes sense if the SNR is sufficient. 2 kHz of bandwidth has proven to be a very good compromise for average amateur signals.

Quote[/b] ]
As to your operating 'instructions' for PMBO's, well, its my understanding that yes, one of the stations has to be controlled by an operator. The other, doesn't. So, perhaps 97.221 does apply, with its 500Hz bandwidth limit. So, tell us, Peter, how even at just over 2kHz, how do your SCS boxes comply with 97.221 when in automatic mode, employing PacTOR III?


Aha, now you again try to split hair? A PMBO NEVER automatically starts a transmission. A contact is ALWAYS initiated by a (remote) operator. Period.

Quote[/b] ]
Be happy that your drones at ARRL have gotten 15kHz of 80 meters set aside for autobots. A maximum of 5 connects is about it, though, Peter, since they're pretty wide. They tried for 11 (35kHz) but, the FCC wouldn't budge.
[/qoute]

There is enough room for all.

[quote]
Tell us, has the FCC purchased many of your SCS modems yet? They should. At least that way they'll be able to identify who is violating 97.221.


Of course, millions!

Peter
Stay in Germany with your SCS modems. You, Sir, are not in the same league as W6EM -- your arguments do not measure up.

Bands full of law-breaking e-mail termination, where hams emulate telecom common carriers will NEVER happen. Regulation by bandwidth will NEVER happen in the U.S.A. Folks like myself, who have 20+ years in the telecom business and ham radio, won't let it happen.

I suggest marketing your modems to commercial services, you'll be better off in the long run.

[KG4PLK]

I'm a 5 WPM General.... and I do think that dropping the code has opened the door for many qualified operators, but it also opens the door for bad operating procedures... like some CB operators practice. I do wish they would have kept the 5 Words per minute for extra.

73's
Robby Lock
KG4PLK
Huntsville-Madison County ,AL ARES AEC
North AL Skywarn
North Alabama DX Club
HSV ARC
Alabama's 1st young ham of the year
Huntsville-Madison County EMA Volunteer
NWS Huntsville and Birmingham Advanced Spotter

[N0NCO]

Hello, all. Just joined the site.

My thoughts on this topic:

It is done.

There will be those who claim it marks the demise of Amateur Radio.

When voice was new, there were those who claimed it would be the demise of Amateur Radio. They were wrong.

When SSB was new, there were also those who predicted that it would ruin the bands. They also were wrong.

Same thing happened with FM, repeaters, packet, and spread-spectrum. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and....wrong.

Back when, some scratch-builders claimed that those who bought their radios weren't "real hams". I think most would agree that they were wrong.

When they gave Techs voice on 6m & up, again, the naysayers claimed it would be the demise of Amateur Radio. Didn't happen.

I think I detect a pattern here......

To those who feel that removing code from the license requirement marks the demise of Amateur Radio, I say this:

Our attitudes & operating practices will make or break this hobby. I will do my part to help prove you wrong.

Use the modes you enjoy, don't use the ones you don't enjoy, and don't belittle those with a different opinion. Most importantly, do your best to be part of the solution - not part of the problem. It's your hobby - enjoy it!

Now, let's get back to advancing the radio art. Speaking of advancement of the radio art - how about that new DX record on 322 GHz (http://www.arrl.org/?artid=7027)? Congrats to WA1ZMS and W4WWQ!

73 to all,

N0NCO
Joel Parker

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (dl6maa @ Dec. 16 2006,14:39)]Lee,

I wonder how YOU can talk about "truth". I simply ask you to stop spreading wrong information about the mode I developed.

Your scare tactic is to tell people that PACTOR-III used huge amounts of spectrum due to its extraordinary bandwidth requirements ("more than 3 kHz"). The truth is that P3 usually occupies roughly 2 kHz just like MT63, digital voice, CLOVER-2000, and other modes. So what?

Yes, it is your right but your biased, one-sided view of things is embarrassing - as well as your very inaccurate and false technical statements are. Just stop your anti-PACTOR campaign! BTW, also foreign persons have the right to write to the FCC. (I visited the United States several times and was impressed how liberal the American people are. You obviously are an exception.)

The 300 Bd regulation is obsolete regarding modern digital modes (PSK) using steep filters for smoothing the symbols. It certainly was useful 20 years ago when only FSK was available - in order to avoid spectral spill-over.
Concerning your hypothetical statements about future modes: What transceivers do you suggest for 10 oder 50 kHz wide modes?? Should the users remove the IF filters? A wider bandwidth only makes sense if the SNR is sufficient. 2 kHz of bandwidth has proven to be a very good compromise for average amateur signals.

Aha, now you again try to split hair? A PMBO NEVER automatically starts a transmission. A contact is ALWAYS initiated by a (remote) operator. Period.


There is enough room for all.

Quote[/b] ]
Tell us, has the FCC purchased many of your SCS modems yet? #They should. #At least that way they'll be able to identify who is violating 97.221.


Of course, millions!

Peter
Peter:

Your concept, your idea, was to create a mode that can communicate more data, more quickly. #I don't have a problem with the desired outcome, its just how you do it below 30MHz.

No, my opinion is shared by many. #Probably not many on this forum, due to their newness to ham radio. #Who am I embarrassing: #You? #The ARRL? #In your opinion, myself. #So, I just go on telling people that the regulations that were designed to limit digital bandwidth are obsolete..... #But wait, you actually now AGREE with me. #Yes, make that 30 to 50 years ago when only FSK was available a symbol Baud rate made sense.

But, now you, and perhaps the other inventors of multicarrier, wide bandwidth emissions via an SSB transmitter are circumventing what the FCC intended: #That digital emissions on the HF bands should be of very narrow bandwidth. #500Hz for most. #1kHz for FSK.

Let's also get our "facts" straight. #I did NOT say "more than 3kHz," Peter, I said upwards of 3kHz. #In English that means less than or equal to......

As to your questions about which transceivers, well, lets think about this for a moment. #The passband of a typical 10.7 MHz IF can be made to be easily 150kHz. #It is that, you know, in FM broadcast receivers. #My point is, just like my conjecture that you can build the next several generations of PacTOR with "N" carriers and many kHz wide, transceivers could be designed and built with very wide IF passbands........on purpose. #Perhaps, Peter, you could combine your next generation modems with the necessary RF components.

Remember, Peter, "the ARRL is with you." #Their intent to spread broadband, high speed IP content across the HF bands is a stated goal. #Perhaps they see big bucks in doing so.....

As to what a PMBO robot does, yes, I did not say it initiated contacts. #Just responded. #But, here's an excerpt from 97.221. #Actually 47CFR97.221{c}, to be exact:
#"{c} A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on any other frequency authorized for such emission types provided that:

# #(1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under local or remote control; and

# #(2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz.

For some reason, Peter, I suspect that each and every unmanned, automatic "responder" PMBO that is US licensed can only use PacTOR II (500Hz maximum bandwidth) without violating this regulation. #You obviously must feel differently. #But, the FCC didn't. #They even DENIED the ARRL's request for an expansion of the bandwidth limit to 3kHz. #So, the FCC seems to agree with me. #Now, that's odd, don't you think?

Now, as to WinLink, email by HF amateur band, etc., well, I just don't see why vacationing professionals need to continue to abuse regulations by using the ham bands to get and respond to their business and personal email when SailMail ™ offers a reasonably priced alternative, even using your hardware.

To you, Peter, that shouldn't make any difference. #You sell the same modems in either situation.

Hopefully, the FCC will clarify what it intends in the body of its regulations and get them up to date with respect to newer digital modes. #Limiting all HF digital emissions #in 97.3{c}2 to 500Hz was a step in the right direction, but undone, no doubt, by under-the-table ex-parte communications with the FCC.

Peter, you can always file an Opposition to my 04-140 Petition for Reconsideration, if you want. #Nobody's stopping you. #Just don't tell me not to do what I am entitled to do as a US citizen...... #Big mistake. #

73,

[W0GDS]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

While this action by FCC is in keeping pace with the rest of the world ITU, it also opens the door for many new awards and attachments, such as an Extra Class with Morse Endorsement, or a new Morse Vintage Communications Mode Award entitled " CW, Keeping it alive" and more ideas that can still allow the prospering of CW. Yes, it will open the door for more operators, but it willa lso help many thousands of OPS who have had a real physical or other type of inability to complete the CW course work. They have the knowledge and we ask that they now bring that knowledge to the Amateurs they QSO with.

The ONLY way to keep the interest in new HAMs coming into the hobby is for many experienced and knowledgeable operators to share that knowledge by joining a VEC team. Make the hobby fun, bring it to the younger generation. Show them the exciting world of communications by hosting Technician classes and teaching General and Extra Classes. Become a VE or VEC and pride yourselves in increasing the number of new licensees and the number of advanced licenses from the first license to the highest and encourage the use of ALL the modes. This is communications evolution! Let's bring more growth to the hobby and the technology will come along with it.

73 Gary Sawyer W0GDS / VE

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W0GDS @ Dec. 16 2006,16:10)]While this action by FCC is in keeping pace with the rest of the world ITU, it also opens the door for many new awards and attachments, such as an Extra Class with Morse Endorsement, or a new Morse Vintage Communications Mode Award entitled
Yeah, like the good old 2nd Class and 1st Class Radiotelegraph licenses......

I think I'll see if I can still take the test for the 2nd.

73,

[wa4eho]

If anyone has been around ham radio for any length of time, they would have realized that learning the Morse code has been the deterrent to keep the CB riff raff off the ham bands for a long time. Regardless of what the new ham that just memorized a few questions or the use to be CBer has to say, we of the old fraternity know this is true. Nobody, I don’t care who he/she is, ever cherishes something that they didn’t have to work for. We have a society of “Gimmes” that want everything for free without having to pay a price. The FCC did that with CB radio and what happened? Yep, the demise of a radio service that should have benefited a lot of people, not just a bunch of criminals who broke the law right off the bat by totally destroying what was given to them free. Just look around at what is going on in this country folks and you’ll understand what I mean. Those that have worked hard for what they have, know what I am talking about. Those that just want it given to them for little or no effort, deep down inside, you know what I’m talking about also. Dumbing down more and more is going to be the downfall of this country and we are on that track just as sure as the sun comes up in the morning. Sorry folks, the truth hurts, huh?

All of those willing to put forth the effort, have been welcomed into the fraternity as well should be. No one knows what is in store for all of us that have been around for a long time but I speculate that we will be treated as we are treated in today’s business community. As a “has been”. Just look at what is being written here on QRZ. The new hams wanting a freebie and all the privileges without having to do anything for it and the old hams becoming totally discussed with the ARRL and FCC for what we perceive to be a step that will destroy Ham Radio as “We” know it. No my dear friends, memorizing a few questions is not enough as far as I’m concerned. Yes, it’s a hobby but to us that have been around for a long time, it’s far more than that. We put forth an effort to get our license and this hobby, as the young hams call it, has brought forth a tremendous amount of technology throughout the earlier years. That is what our pride is all about. Knowing that we led the way so that those on the airways today are able to enjoy this “Hobby”.

Now in our broken society, we continue to see more and more dumbing down in every aspect of our country. I believe that maintaining the requirement of learning the Morse Code was the only thing left to allow us to think that at least the ones that come on board to becoming hams are at least the upper level of our society that is still willing to put forth the effort to become one of us. I for one feel betrayed more than anything, that the FCC would allow this to happen. The early hams have worked to hard to preserve this hobby for the ARRL and FCC to just give it away to those that are just to darn lazy to put forth any effort other than to memorize a few questions that they do not understand in order to become a ham. As a ham since 1962, I can speak as one who has seen more than any of the new call sign hams and it is a fact that the requirements to become a ham have been dumbed down so much that anyone with a third grade education can get a license. Geez, we even have 8 year olds getting Extra licenses now. How dumb is that??? They are either geniuses or the questions are just flat out too easy. I think the latter is the case.

Yes, the FCC has done away with the code requirement and now every Tom, Dick and Harriet will memorize themselves into the Extra class without so much as knowing the color code of a resistor. I’m sorry, but I firmly believe, those that just flat refused to knuckle down and learn Morse code just want everything to be given to them without having to put forth the effort. I have heard comments from those that have hearing problems and are hearing impaired that this was great for them. I can totally understand their plight. If the FCC truly wanted to help those folks, they could have offered an exemption to the hearing impaired and give them a pass with a certification from their medical doctor. That would have solved their problem.

Offering the Q&A by the FCC was just the beginning step of dumbing down Ham Radio and now they break the final straw by doing away with the requirement of putting forth the effort of learning Morse Code. Shame on them and shame on those that advocate that this is going to make ham radio better. No, I say not better, just more populated, until it is driven into the ground just like Citizen Band radio!!

Yes, this is a dark day for Ham Radio. I will not quit but the spirit of Ham Radio is forever lost with this travesty that the FCC has laid upon us!!!

[K3STP]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif :rock: http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif All I got to say is this. The Generals who gave me my tech exam said they had to learn it but don't use it. In fact had forgotten it. The mojority of those I talked too say the same thing (They don't remember because they don't use CW.) Now I commend those who do know it, you have a talent I envy. I myself want to talk to someone not ditdash the message. We all have our ouwn ways we like to operate our rigs some only use 2m 20m 10m now should we condem them because they aren't useing all they are able too? Be happy for those that wanted this and be glad for those who know it and love it. We are suppose to be together on this. There is no way the charlie bravos are going to get to us because we did away with the code accually we just might save some from the crap on the 11m. Most of those like myself who have come over hasn't gone back to the CB. Stop your crying and fussing like those on the 11m and let this be a season of joy instead of all this ball sucking. Merry Christmas and a Happy New year 73 KB3NUV PS: I am still trying to learn the code no matter, as are others.:D

[dl6maa]

Quote[/b] ]

Stay in Germany with your SCS modems. #You, Sir, are not in the same league as W6EM -- your arguments do not measure up. #

I like American products. For example, I am also a hobby astronomer and I can tell you that (in my opinion) the best telescopes are manufactured in the USA...
Sorry, that you don't like European products.

Quote[/b] ]
Bands full of law-breaking e-mail termination, where hams emulate telecom common carriers will NEVER happen.

Apparantely, the scare tactic works.

Quote[/b] ]
Regulation by bandwidth will NEVER happen in the U.S.A. #Folks like myself, who have 20+ years in the telecom business and ham radio, won't let it happen.

In my opinion a bandplan by bandwidth is reasonable.

Regarding your 20+ years in ham radio: I got my HF license in 1981, am a member of 3 high speed CW clubs - and, last but not least, have 20+ years experience in HF modem development.

Quote[/b] ]
I suggest marketing your modems to commercial services, you'll be better off in the long run.

I just try to develop good HF modems.

73 de Peter

[n6kzb]

Quote[/b] (wa4eho @ Dec. 17 2006,14:19)]If anyone has been around ham radio for any length of time, they would have realized that learning the Morse code has been the deterrent to keep the CB riff raff off the ham bands for a long time. Regardless of what the new ham that just memorized a few questions or the use to be CBer has to say, we of the old fraternity know this is true. Nobody, I don’t care who he/she is, ever cherishes something that they didn’t have to work for. We have a society of “Gimmes” that want everything for free without having to pay a price. The FCC did that with CB radio and what happened? Yep, the demise of a radio service that should have benefited a lot of people, not just a bunch of criminals who broke the law right off the bat by totally destroying what was given to them free. Just look around at what is going on in this country folks and you’ll understand what I mean. Those that have worked hard for what they have, know what I am talking about. Those that just want it given to them for little or no effort, deep down inside, you know what I’m talking about also. Dumbing down more and more is going to be the downfall of this country and we are on that track just as sure as the sun comes up in the morning. Sorry folks, the truth hurts, huh?

All of those willing to put forth the effort, have been welcomed into the fraternity as well should be. No one knows what is in store for all of us that have been around for a long time but I speculate that we will be treated as we are treated in today’s business community. As a “has been”. Just look at what is being written here on QRZ. The new hams wanting a freebie and all the privileges without having to do anything for it and the old hams becoming totally discussed with the ARRL and FCC for what we perceive to be a step that will destroy Ham Radio as “We” know it. No my dear friends, memorizing a few questions is not enough as far as I’m concerned. Yes, it’s a hobby but to us that have been around for a long time, it’s far more than that. We put forth an effort to get our license and this hobby, as the young hams call it, has brought forth a tremendous amount of technology throughout the earlier years. That is what our pride is all about. Knowing that we led the way so that those on the airways today are able to enjoy this “Hobby”.

Now in our broken society, we continue to see more and more dumbing down in every aspect of our country. I believe that maintaining the requirement of learning the Morse Code was the only thing left to allow us to think that at least the ones that come on board to becoming hams are at least the upper level of our society that is still willing to put forth the effort to become one of us. I for one feel betrayed more than anything, that the FCC would allow this to happen. The early hams have worked to hard to preserve this hobby for the ARRL and FCC to just give it away to those that are just to darn lazy to put forth any effort other than to memorize a few questions that they do not understand in order to become a ham. As a ham since 1962, I can speak as one who has seen more than any of the new call sign hams and it is a fact that the requirements to become a ham have been dumbed down so much that anyone with a third grade education can get a license. Geez, we even have 8 year olds getting Extra licenses now. How dumb is that??? They are either geniuses or the questions are just flat out too easy. I think the latter is the case.

Yes, the FCC has done away with the code requirement and now every Tom, Dick and Harriet will memorize themselves into the Extra class without so much as knowing the color code of a resistor. I’m sorry, but I firmly believe, those that just flat refused to knuckle down and learn Morse code just want everything to be given to them without having to put forth the effort. I have heard comments from those that have hearing problems and are hearing impaired that this was great for them. I can totally understand their plight. If the FCC truly wanted to help those folks, they could have offered an exemption to the hearing impaired and give them a pass with a certification from their medical doctor. That would have solved their problem.

Offering the Q&A by the FCC was just the beginning step of dumbing down Ham Radio and now they break the final straw by doing away with the requirement of putting forth the effort of learning Morse Code. Shame on them and shame on those that advocate that this is going to make ham radio better. No, I say not better, just more populated, until it is driven into the ground just like Citizen Band radio!!

Yes, this is a dark day for Ham Radio. I will not quit but the spirit of Ham Radio is forever lost with this travesty that the FCC has laid upon us!!!
Lets see, CW certainly has kept the riff raff off 80, 40, and 20 meters. Gee is all that foul language and jamming my imagination, or are those folks CW qualified? #CW does not make a better ham, good practice does.

Guess CW really played a part in keeping the air ways clean. NOT !

It's OK to cry, its almost over with.

Mike

[KC0UCF]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 17 2006,06:05)]Quote[/b] (k2rja @ Dec. 17 2006,01:14)]NO CODE - It could be a good thing or bad, it depends on the OPERATOR using that radio - morse code does not make you any better of an operator. Let the party begin... Hey, what's next 1-class license for all?

Happy Holidays...
You know not of what you speak. #Are you a member of the Jerky Boys? #Do you do dumb stuff fairly frequently?

Every code head I have ever met is the opitomy of ham radio and what ham radio is all about. #They have a deeper sense of what ham radio is and see it not as a hobby, but a lifestyle. #It's not about whiners, and not about calling their mommy either. #Its about prestige and about code.

No coders are lower class coming from lower class housing and (1) parent families since they don't the right attitude to learn. #You all need a good whippin to get in shape and learn the code, get a job and stop whining you don't know where or who your father is. #

Hey, how about all the code guys start to board busses to the FCC offices in DC and protest this?

This is absurd. #How about the ARRL taking them to court.

Oh forget it, I need more coffee.

K2WH
Well, Its a wonder you even past any of the test to get a licence with that kind of bs. Infact you probley dont have a licence and your boot legging someone's call. If I hear you on The ham band, I will let everyone on that freq know what kind of person you are, and sure wont talk to you being your so narrow minded... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[n6kzb]

Quote[/b] (dl6maa @ Dec. 17 2006,14:28)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 17 2006,13:47)]
Quote[/b] ]

Stay in Germany with your SCS modems. #You, Sir, are not in the same league as W6EM -- your arguments do not measure up. #

I like American products. For example, I am also a hobby astronomer and I can tell you that (in my opinion) the best telescopes are manufactured in the USA...
Sorry, that you don't like European products.

Quote[/b] ]
Bands full of law-breaking e-mail termination, where hams emulate telecom common carriers will NEVER happen.

Apparantely, the scare tactic works.

Quote[/b] ]
Regulation by bandwidth will NEVER happen in the U.S.A. #Folks like myself, who have 20+ years in the telecom business and ham radio, won't let it happen.

In my opinion a bandplan by bandwidth is reasonable.

Regarding your 20+ years in ham radio: I got my HF license in 1981, am a member of 3 high speed CW clubs - and, last but not least, have 20+ years experience in HF modem development.

Quote[/b] ]
I suggest marketing your modems to commercial services, you'll be better off in the long run.

I just try to develop good HF modems.

73 de Peter
Peter, those that know how to read the latest FCC rules and Omnibus proceedings, see clearly where Pactor 3 is allowed, and in semi-automatic mode.

The dropping of CW just means more amateurs will now be able to join our ARES/RACES group, and operate HF WinLink 2000, for emergencies.

All is as it was before. Just some band adjustments.

They will figure it out, since the semi-auto transmissons will continue. Remember these same whiners don't own, use, or never tried Winlink with Pactor 3, thus they are experts.

Oh and I apologize for my fellow countryman, who warns you not to make a "big mistake", because he is a U.S. citizen. Rest assured we will not allow him to send the marines.

(1974-1976 #Seckenheim, CENTAG Army group, enjoyed my tour in your country).

Mike

[w6em]

I seriously doubt that there will be such a huge increase of HF usage that it will make much difference.

Here I sit with my extra class license, yet, thanks to antenna restrictions via CC&Rs, I haven't had an outside antenna for 7 years!!

So, what 'privileges' have I been using in all that time? Technician privileges, my friends. No CW. No SSB. Just 2M and 70cM FM (but I forgot, for a second about 33cM FM via my GTX HT).

I now think that maybe there IS some hope of getting many of the 700,000 or so licensed hams to be seriously interested in getting on HF. And, to do that means, yes, an outside antenna of some consequence. At least, a wire dipole.

So, what the FCC has done, is opened the door to increased demand for HF antennas and pre-emption of CC&Rs.

For those that are interested in a group that has a rather high and visible profile to achieve just that, check out "hams for action" at www.hamsforaction.com

Elimination of the CW barrier isn't the end. Its only another chapter in ham radio. We really need be more concerned with threats to our spectrum. From within and without. BPL, wide-bandwidth HF IP content (ARRLink), and spectrum under-utilization, for starters.

As some have said, quite accurately, there are more LIDs on HF SSB than any other mode. And, all of them had to pass a code test. Geesh. I've been at this for 45 years as of the 29th of this month. I've held Novice, Conditional, Advanced and now Extra licenses. Yeah, I'm a 20WPM (just barely) Extra. A ham is a ham is a ham.

I helped my son pass the 5WPM code exam, thanks to our computer and program since we couldn't get on HF or even listen satisfactorily. He's had his license now for about 3 years, yet he's never had an HF CW contact. Someday, though, if he's out in the outback with his FT-817 on batteries, he may just want to. Or, have to, to be heard. Even at only a couple of words per minute.

But, again, a ham is a ham is a ham is a ham.......

73, and stop the bickering about CW. And, focus on what REALLY can ruin our spectrum!!!

[ke5rs]

As far back as I can remember, getting a license has been getting easier and easier. I am fortunate I did not have to drive to a FCC office to take my tests but I still had to become a novice first. Every change that has come along since has been to either eliminate a test or skill. We eliminated the novice, the technician, 20 WPM, 13 WPM and now 5 WPM. I might be wrong here but I think there has been nothing added to replaced. If it keeps going like this; does it mean there will be eventually no license requirement at all?

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (n6kzb @ Dec. 16 2006,16:41)]Peter, those that know how to read the latest FCC rules and Omnibus proceedings, see clearly where Pactor 3 is allowed, and in semi-automatic mode.

Oh and I apologize for my fellow countryman, who warns you not to make a "big mistake", because he is a U.S. citizen. Rest assured we will not allow him to send the marines.

(1974-1976 #Seckenheim, CENTAG Army group, enjoyed my tour in your country).

Mike
I'm from Missouri, so "show me" where, in specific language, that HF wide-bandwidth digital emissions are permitted. #By this R&O, or in regulations.

And, I don't mean "symbol rate may not exceed 300Baud."

If you think that the Erratum did so, read it as "retention of existing ambiguity."

As to your understanding of automatic, what is there that differs with the FCC's semi-automatic (automatic on one end, a manned station on the other) definition in 97.221{c}?

You needn't apologize for me. #And, I won't apologize for you.

As I told someone off line, I'll be using a digital mode on HF that (1) has a bandwidth of 500Hz or less (except for FSK); and (2) has an open protocol, like some of the soundcard modes being developed.

Nice, low cost implementation using on-board hardware. #Per what Steve Waterman, K4CJX, creator of WinLink, told me recently in Huntsville, those are now being developed and will be compatible with WinLink.

From the sound of your exchange, are you, by chance, fishing for a discount on one of Peter's modems?

[wa4eho]

Quote[/b] (n6kzb @ Dec. 17 2006,14:29)]Quote[/b] (wa4eho @ Dec. 17 2006,14:19)]If anyone has been around ham radio for any length of time, they would have realized that learning the Morse code has been the deterrent to keep the CB riff raff off the ham bands for a long time. Regardless of what the new ham that just memorized a few questions or the use to be CBer has to say, we of the old fraternity know this is true. Nobody, I don’t care who he/she is, ever cherishes something that they didn’t have to work for. We have a society of “Gimmes” that want everything for free without having to pay a price. The FCC did that with CB radio and what happened? Yep, the demise of a radio service that should have benefited a lot of people, not just a bunch of criminals who broke the law right off the bat by totally destroying what was given to them free. Just look around at what is going on in this country folks and you’ll understand what I mean. Those that have worked hard for what they have, know what I am talking about. Those that just want it given to them for little or no effort, deep down inside, you know what I’m talking about also. Dumbing down more and more is going to be the downfall of this country and we are on that track just as sure as the sun comes up in the morning. Sorry folks, the truth hurts, huh?

All of those willing to put forth the effort, have been welcomed into the fraternity as well should be. No one knows what is in store for all of us that have been around for a long time but I speculate that we will be treated as we are treated in today’s business community. As a “has been”. Just look at what is being written here on QRZ. The new hams wanting a freebie and all the privileges without having to do anything for it and the old hams becoming totally discussed with the ARRL and FCC for what we perceive to be a step that will destroy Ham Radio as “We” know it. No my dear friends, memorizing a few questions is not enough as far as I’m concerned. Yes, it’s a hobby but to us that have been around for a long time, it’s far more than that. We put forth an effort to get our license and this hobby, as the young hams call it, has brought forth a tremendous amount of technology throughout the earlier years. That is what our pride is all about. Knowing that we led the way so that those on the airways today are able to enjoy this “Hobby”.

Now in our broken society, we continue to see more and more dumbing down in every aspect of our country. I believe that maintaining the requirement of learning the Morse Code was the only thing left to allow us to think that at least the ones that come on board to becoming hams are at least the upper level of our society that is still willing to put forth the effort to become one of us. I for one feel betrayed more than anything, that the FCC would allow this to happen. The early hams have worked to hard to preserve this hobby for the ARRL and FCC to just give it away to those that are just to darn lazy to put forth any effort other than to memorize a few questions that they do not understand in order to become a ham. As a ham since 1962, I can speak as one who has seen more than any of the new call sign hams and it is a fact that the requirements to become a ham have been dumbed down so much that anyone with a third grade education can get a license. Geez, we even have 8 year olds getting Extra licenses now. How dumb is that??? They are either geniuses or the questions are just flat out too easy. I think the latter is the case.

Yes, the FCC has done away with the code requirement and now every Tom, Dick and Harriet will memorize themselves into the Extra class without so much as knowing the color code of a resistor. I’m sorry, but I firmly believe, those that just flat refused to knuckle down and learn Morse code just want everything to be given to them without having to put forth the effort. I have heard comments from those that have hearing problems and are hearing impaired that this was great for them. I can totally understand their plight. If the FCC truly wanted to help those folks, they could have offered an exemption to the hearing impaired and give them a pass with a certification from their medical doctor. That would have solved their problem.

Offering the Q&A by the FCC was just the beginning step of dumbing down Ham Radio and now they break the final straw by doing away with the requirement of putting forth the effort of learning Morse Code. Shame on them and shame on those that advocate that this is going to make ham radio better. No, I say not better, just more populated, until it is driven into the ground just like Citizen Band radio!!

Yes, this is a dark day for Ham Radio. I will not quit but the spirit of Ham Radio is forever lost with this travesty that the FCC has laid upon us!!!
Lets see, CW certainly has kept the riff raff off 80, 40, and 20 meters. Gee is all that foul language and jamming my imagination, or are those folks CW qualified? #CW does not make a better ham, good practice does.

Guess CW really played a part in keeping the air ways clean. NOT !

It's OK to cry, its almost over with.

Mike
This is exactly what I have just gotten through writing about. Mike, you are the prime example of why Ham radio is dumbing down. You're here aren't you?? Why??Because you memorized a few questions and got a license?? No sir, to the contrary, you are not what has made Ham Radio a great hobby, You sir are what has been building into what is going to be the downfall of Ham radio. You can call me a whiner all you want. I know more about electronics than you could ever forget and I and folks like me made Ham Radio so you can be here. Sorry pal, you can sling names all you want, you're still a dumbing down of the Ham Radio and we all know who you are. That is the grief of why this whole issue as struck so deep into the hearts of those that have done so much just so your dumb theories and idiotic retoric can have your say.
I will agree with you that the air ways have gotten bad. Unfortunately, even some CBers have gotten into ham radio and there is nothing we can do about it. When we report them, the FCC does nothing. They want Ham Radio to fail and this is a sure fire way for it to happen. The frequencies are worth a lot of money to the FCC if we fail. Apparently, that is a notion that everybody seems to be overlooking. Us old timers just hate to see this happen to a hobby that has been around so long and then have it destroyed by riff raff. So give yourself a break Lid, shut up, you're just making yourself sound dumber everytime you write something. You didn't win, what has really happened is Ham Radio LOST!!! What I have written is my opinion but if you want to attach me then like I said, you are a perfect example of what is now wrong with Ham Radio. Grow up kid.

[N2MMM]

Quote[/b] (wa2sam @ Dec. 16 2006,15:28)]Quote[/b] (n3ox @ Dec. 16 2006,10:09)]Paul, I read arrl.org directly as of this morning... they revised it on their site.

No-Code Techs will have HF privileges on 80,40,15, and 10 when the R&O goes into effect, general-level CW only on 80,40,15, general-level CW&DATA and .300-.500 Voice on 10m

Dan
While I am excited about being able to use those portions of the HF spectrum, i'm still going to use learn and use code.
You will need to to use those bands (except for 10 meters) anyway.

[k9mhz]

AB2MH wrote........
I could say the same for the SSB/AM audiophile guys who are 3+ kC's wide, when all they really need to communicate is 1.8 kC's or less.
What a bunch of lids polluting the spectrum with their extra-wide signals!



Huh? I didn't read anything in the FCC bulletin about bandwidths....just dropping CW as a licensing requirement. Refocus, AB2MH.... we're talking about LICENSING REQUIREMENTS....if you don't like the SSB/AM guys, take it somewhere else,

N6KYS

[n6kzb]

Quote[/b] (wa4eho @ Dec. 17 2006,15:21)]Quote[/b] (n6kzb @ Dec. 17 2006,14:29)]Quote[/b] (wa4eho @ Dec. 17 2006,14:19)]If anyone has been around ham radio for any length of time, they would have realized that learning the Morse code has been the deterrent to keep the CB riff raff off the ham bands for a long time. Regardless of what the new ham that just memorized a few questions or the use to be CBer has to say, we of the old fraternity know this is true. Nobody, I don’t care who he/she is, ever cherishes something that they didn’t have to work for. We have a society of “Gimmes” that want everything for free without having to pay a price. The FCC did that with CB radio and what happened? Yep, the demise of a radio service that should have benefited a lot of people, not just a bunch of criminals who broke the law right off the bat by totally destroying what was given to them free. Just look around at what is going on in this country folks and you’ll understand what I mean. Those that have worked hard for what they have, know what I am talking about. Those that just want it given to them for little or no effort, deep down inside, you know what I’m talking about also. Dumbing down more and more is going to be the downfall of this country and we are on that track just as sure as the sun comes up in the morning. Sorry folks, the truth hurts, huh?

All of those willing to put forth the effort, have been welcomed into the fraternity as well should be. No one knows what is in store for all of us that have been around for a long time but I speculate that we will be treated as we are treated in today’s business community. As a “has been”. Just look at what is being written here on QRZ. The new hams wanting a freebie and all the privileges without having to do anything for it and the old hams becoming totally discussed with the ARRL and FCC for what we perceive to be a step that will destroy Ham Radio as “We” know it. No my dear friends, memorizing a few questions is not enough as far as I’m concerned. Yes, it’s a hobby but to us that have been around for a long time, it’s far more than that. We put forth an effort to get our license and this hobby, as the young hams call it, has brought forth a tremendous amount of technology throughout the earlier years. That is what our pride is all about. Knowing that we led the way so that those on the airways today are able to enjoy this “Hobby”.

Now in our broken society, we continue to see more and more dumbing down in every aspect of our country. I believe that maintaining the requirement of learning the Morse Code was the only thing left to allow us to think that at least the ones that come on board to becoming hams are at least the upper level of our society that is still willing to put forth the effort to become one of us. I for one feel betrayed more than anything, that the FCC would allow this to happen. The early hams have worked to hard to preserve this hobby for the ARRL and FCC to just give it away to those that are just to darn lazy to put forth any effort other than to memorize a few questions that they do not understand in order to become a ham. As a ham since 1962, I can speak as one who has seen more than any of the new call sign hams and it is a fact that the requirements to become a ham have been dumbed down so much that anyone with a third grade education can get a license. Geez, we even have 8 year olds getting Extra licenses now. How dumb is that??? They are either geniuses or the questions are just flat out too easy. I think the latter is the case.

Yes, the FCC has done away with the code requirement and now every Tom, Dick and Harriet will memorize themselves into the Extra class without so much as knowing the color code of a resistor. I’m sorry, but I firmly believe, those that just flat refused to knuckle down and learn Morse code just want everything to be given to them without having to put forth the effort. I have heard comments from those that have hearing problems and are hearing impaired that this was great for them. I can totally understand their plight. If the FCC truly wanted to help those folks, they could have offered an exemption to the hearing impaired and give them a pass with a certification from their medical doctor. That would have solved their problem.

Offering the Q&A by the FCC was just the beginning step of dumbing down Ham Radio and now they break the final straw by doing away with the requirement of putting forth the effort of learning Morse Code. Shame on them and shame on those that advocate that this is going to make ham radio better. No, I say not better, just more populated, until it is driven into the ground just like Citizen Band radio!!

Yes, this is a dark day for Ham Radio. I will not quit but the spirit of Ham Radio is forever lost with this travesty that the FCC has laid upon us!!!
Lets see, CW certainly has kept the riff raff off 80, 40, and 20 meters. Gee is all that foul language and jamming my imagination, or are those folks CW qualified? #CW does not make a better ham, good practice does.

Guess CW really played a part in keeping the air ways clean. NOT !

It's OK to cry, its almost over with.

Mike
This is exactly what I have just gotten through writing about. Mike, you are the prime example of why Ham radio is dumbing down. You're here aren't you?? Why??Because you memorized a few questions and got a license?? No sir, to the contrary, you are not what has made Ham Radio a great hobby, You sir are what has been building into what is going to be the downfall of Ham radio. You can call me a whiner all you want. I know more about electronics than you could ever forget and I and folks like me made Ham Radio so you can be here. Sorry pal, you can sling names all you want, you're still a dumbing down of the Ham Radio and we all know who you are. That is the grief of why this whole issue as struck so deep into the hearts of those that have done so much just so your dumb theories and idiotic retoric can have your say.
I will agree with you that the air ways have gotten bad. Unfortunately, even some CBers have gotten into ham radio and there is nothing we can do about it. When we report them, the FCC does nothing. They want Ham Radio to fail and this is a sure fire way for it to happen. The frequencies are worth a lot of money to the FCC if we fail. Apparently, that is a notion that everybody seems to be overlooking. Us old timers just hate to see this happen to a hobby that has been around so long and then have it destroyed by riff raff. So give yourself a break Lid, shut up, you're just making yourself sound dumber everytime you write something. You didn't win, what has really happened is Ham Radio LOST!!! What I have written is my opinion but if you want to attach me then like I said, you are a perfect example of what is now wrong with Ham Radio. Grow up kid.
Pack sand and have a Merry Christmas.

Mike

[W5AU]

Bottom Line..... The FCC is peaved at the ARRL and Ham Radio Community big time over all the protests of their pet project BPL. The easiest way to "Take Care" of the problem is to destroy this problem within. That is what they are steadily doing....... Step by Step.... Given a few years and there wont be a problem for the FCC at all.

[n6kzb]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 17 2006,14:04)]Quote[/b] (dl6maa @ Dec. 16 2006,14:39)]Lee,

I wonder how YOU can talk about "truth". I simply ask you to stop spreading wrong information about the mode I developed.

Your scare tactic is to tell people that PACTOR-III used huge amounts of spectrum due to its extraordinary bandwidth requirements ("more than 3 kHz"). The truth is that P3 usually occupies roughly 2 kHz just like MT63, digital voice, CLOVER-2000, and other modes. So what?

Yes, it is your right but your biased, one-sided view of things is embarrassing - as well as your very inaccurate and false technical statements are. Just stop your anti-PACTOR campaign! BTW, also foreign persons have the right to write to the FCC. (I visited the United States several times and was impressed how liberal the American people are. You obviously are an exception.)

The 300 Bd regulation is obsolete regarding modern digital modes (PSK) using steep filters for smoothing the symbols. It certainly was useful 20 years ago when only FSK was available - in order to avoid spectral spill-over.
Concerning your hypothetical statements about future modes: What transceivers do you suggest for 10 oder 50 kHz wide modes?? Should the users remove the IF filters? A wider bandwidth only makes sense if the SNR is sufficient. 2 kHz of bandwidth has proven to be a very good compromise for average amateur signals.

Aha, now you again try to split hair? A PMBO NEVER automatically starts a transmission. A contact is ALWAYS initiated by a (remote) operator. Period.


There is enough room for all.

Quote[/b] ]
Tell us, has the FCC purchased many of your SCS modems yet? #They should. #At least that way they'll be able to identify who is violating 97.221.


Of course, millions!

Peter
Peter:

Your concept, your idea, was to create a mode that can communicate more data, more quickly. #I don't have a problem with the desired outcome, its just how you do it below 30MHz.

No, my opinion is shared by many. #Probably not many on this forum, due to their newness to ham radio. #Who am I embarrassing: #You? #The ARRL? #In your opinion, myself. #So, I just go on telling people that the regulations that were designed to limit digital bandwidth are obsolete..... #But wait, you actually now AGREE with me. #Yes, make that 30 to 50 years ago when only FSK was available a symbol Baud rate made sense.

But, now you, and perhaps the other inventors of multicarrier, wide bandwidth emissions via an SSB transmitter are circumventing what the FCC intended: #That digital emissions on the HF bands should be of very narrow bandwidth. #500Hz for most. #1kHz for FSK.

Let's also get our "facts" straight. #I did NOT say "more than 3kHz," Peter, I said upwards of 3kHz. #In English that means less than or equal to......

As to your questions about which transceivers, well, lets think about this for a moment. #The passband of a typical 10.7 MHz IF can be made to be easily 150kHz. #It is that, you know, in FM broadcast receivers. #My point is, just like my conjecture that you can build the next several generations of PacTOR with "N" carriers and many kHz wide, transceivers could be designed and built with very wide IF passbands........on purpose. #Perhaps, Peter, you could combine your next generation modems with the necessary RF components.

Remember, Peter, "the ARRL is with you." #Their intent to spread broadband, high speed IP content across the HF bands is a stated goal. #Perhaps they see big bucks in doing so.....

As to what a PMBO robot does, yes, I did not say it initiated contacts. #Just responded. #But, here's an excerpt from 97.221. #Actually 47CFR97.221{c}, to be exact:
#"{c} A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on any other frequency authorized for such emission types provided that:

# #(1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under local or remote control; and

# #(2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz.

For some reason, Peter, I suspect that each and every unmanned, automatic "responder" PMBO that is US licensed can only use PacTOR II (500Hz maximum bandwidth) without violating this regulation. #You obviously must feel differently. #But, the FCC didn't. #They even DENIED the ARRL's request for an expansion of the bandwidth limit to 3kHz. #So, the FCC seems to agree with me. #Now, that's odd, don't you think?

Now, as to WinLink, email by HF amateur band, etc., well, I just don't see why vacationing professionals need to continue to abuse regulations by using the ham bands to get and respond to their business and personal email when SailMail ™ offers a reasonably priced alternative, even using your hardware.

To you, Peter, that shouldn't make any difference. #You sell the same modems in either situation.

Hopefully, the FCC will clarify what it intends in the body of its regulations and get them up to date with respect to newer digital modes. #Limiting all HF digital emissions #in 97.3{c}2 to 500Hz was a step in the right direction, but undone, no doubt, by under-the-table ex-parte communications with the FCC.

Peter, you can always file an Opposition to my 04-140 Petition for Reconsideration, if you want. #Nobody's stopping you. #Just don't tell me not to do what I am entitled to do as a US citizen...... #Big mistake. #

73,
"Peter:

Your concept, your idea, was to create a mode that can communicate more
data, more quickly. #I don't have a problem with the desired outcome, its
just how you do it below 30MHz.

From n6kzb: Yes, like SSB, enhanced SSB and AM, those new digital modes are
working for many, who in the past could not use frequencies below 30 MHz
efficiently to transfer data. And, here you are banging on the very inventor
of the protocol that accomplishes what no other has to date. Why?

No, my opinion is shared by many. #Probably not many on this forum, due to
their newness to ham radio. #Who am I embarrassing: #You? #The ARRL? #In
your opinion, myself.

From n6kzb: You are definitely overcome by your own need to be "right,"
since I would assume you know better considering your background and age.
Obviously, your motive is not one of jealousy like many others who have done
"something" productive in the digital realm. It is people like you who are killing the
Amateur service by resisting any advancement that would otherwise show its
usefulness, especially in the arena of emergency communications.

#So, I just go on telling people that the regulations that were designed to
limit digital bandwidth are obsolete..... #But wait, you actually now AGREE
with me. #Yes, make that 30 to 50 years ago when only FSK was available a
symbol Baud rate made sense.

But, now you, and perhaps the other inventors of multicarrier, wide
bandwidth emissions via an SSB transmitter are circumventing what the FCC
intended: #That digital emissions on the HF bands should be of very narrow
bandwidth. #500Hz for most. #1kHz for FSK.

From n6kzb: Fortunately, there are no more "should" with digital
transmissions than there are with Voice. Where were you when the FCC denied
the petition to limit analog transmissions to 3.0 KHz? Why should digital
transmissions be any different? Your key word "intended" indicates past
tense, and we all agree with that. A protocol with a symbol rate of 100 baud
and a throughput of over 3600 bps is a remarkable achievement. Why try to
stop it? Running around making posts like this and ranting to those who
throw your remarks in the trash should be embarrassing. If Peter did not
mean this, I certainly do.

Let's also get our "facts" straight. #I did NOT say "more than 3kHz," Peter,
I said upwards of 3kHz. #In English that means less than or equal to......

From n6kzb: So, what is your point? 2 KHZ, 3KH...Obsolete rules regarding
symbol rate will soon be corrected. Bitch and complain, or hide and watch.
Your choice. But why? You have only read about such issues, never really
participated. #If you were in a disaster situation or offshore facing the
threats involved there, you would be singing another tune.
I know, all those "professionals" at sea should be using cell phones and not SSB.

As to your questions about which transceivers, well, lets think about this
for a moment. The passband of a typical 10.7 MHz IF can be made to be
easily 150kHz. It is that, you know, in FM broadcast receivers. My point
is, just like my conjecture that you can build the next several generations
of PacTOR with "N" carriers and many kHz wide, transceivers could be
designed and built with very wide IF passbands........on purpose. #Perhaps,
Peter, you could combine your next generation modems with the necessary RF
components.

From N6kzb: Now you are telling the inventor of the most advanced protocol
known for such limited bandwidth how to fix his invention. Really!

Remember, Peter, "the ARRL is with you." #Their intent to spread broadband,
high speed IP content across the HF bands is a stated goal. #Perhaps they
see big bucks in doing so.....

From n6kzb: Lee, get with the program, man! #The Big bucks are spreading SSB
all over the Spectrum. After all, look at the numbers of SSB advertisements
in QST, and the number of signals compared to your odd dislike of a few
digital signals. Look at the bandwidth allocation comparisons. Why are you
not complaining about all those multi-kilowatt SSB contest stations who do
not bother to listen before THEY transmit. Special rules in the Part 97 for
such activities?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #Why should the laws be prejudice against digital signal
bandwidth and in favor of 6 KHz AM or SSB? Or, for that matter, normal SSB,
which is, for all practical purposes, just as wide as Pactor 3, maybe wider.
Oh, but that is okay, right? Sounds like there are too many #"shoulds" in
this discussion and that you have been "should on" by the recent FCC denial
of limiting bandwidth of AM and SSB.

As to what a PMBO robot does, yes, I did not say it initiated contacts. Just
responded. #But, here's an excerpt from 97.221. #Actually 47CFR97.211{c}, to
be exact: #"{c} A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting
a RTTY or data emission on any other frequency authorized for such emission
types provided that:

# (1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under local
or remote control; and

# (2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station occupies a
bandwidth of more than 500 Hz.

From n6kzb: This allows an unattended station to be initiated by a control
operator OUTSIDE the 97.221(b) frequencies anywhere that any data is
allowed. So what? Pactor 3 is bound by 978.221(b) frequencies, currently,
that is.

For some reason, Peter, I suspect that each and every unmanned, automatic
"responder" PMBO that is US licensed can only use PacTOR II (500Hz maximum
bandwidth) without violating this regulation.

From n6kzb: ONLY OUTSIDE 97.221(b) frequencies, at least, for the present.
The FCC definitely does NOT agree with you. Why do you think that there are
specific frequency ranges for 97.221(b)? Those auto-subbands are
specifically set up for unattended operations and operations under local or
remote control for transmissions OVER 500 Hz.

You obviously must feel differently. But, the FCC didn't. They even
DENIED the ARRL's request for an expansion of the bandwidth limit to 3kHz.
So, the FCC seems to agree with me. Now, that's odd, don't you think?

From n6kzb: The only thing odd is your attempt to distort the FCC part 97
rules. With a control operator present, there is no bandwidth limitations.
Remember, the FCC just denied a former petition to limit SSB and AM to 3
KHz, allowing 6-9 KHz bandwidth for enhanced SSB and AM. I hear nothing
about this? Why not? Doesn't fit your need to be right?

Now, as to WinLink, email by HF amateur band, etc., well, I just don't see
why vacationing professionals need to continue to abuse regulations by using
the ham bands to get and respond to their business and personal email when
SailMail T offers a reasonably priced alternative, even using your hardware.

From n6kzb: You know, that also applies to people using SSB transmissions
when they can, in fact, use a cell phone, land line or Satellite phone. What
is the difference? So, I guess it is a good thing you are on the Internet
and not using SSB as a retired "professional."

To you, Peter, that shouldn't make any difference. #You sell the same modems
in either situation.

From N6kzb: Finally, an accurate and truthful statement.

Hopefully, the FCC will clarify what it intends in the body of its
regulations and get them up to date with respect to newer digital modes.
Limiting all HF digital emissions #in 97.3C2 to 500Hz was a step in the
right direction, but undone, no doubt, by under-the-table ex-parte
communications with the FCC.

From n6kzb: Give us a break! Just because it does not agree with your
assessment, does not make it covert and "under the table ex-parte
communications." #Looking at your logic, while they are at it, they may as
well limit SSB to 500 Hz, also. Why should digital transmissions have
different rules than analog transmissions, especially, as more state of the
art digital transmission types are no longer suppressed by limited
bandwidth.

Peter, you can always file an Opposition to my Petition for Reconsideration,
if you want. #Nobody's stopping you. #Just don't tell me not to do what I am
entitled to do as a US citizen...... #Big mistake.

From n6zkb: I wholeheartedly agree with Peter, and I am also a US citizen. Am
I also making a mistake? You sound like a man whose prejudice has overcome
his logic. Fortunately, your interpretation of the FCC Part 97 rules is WAY
off base. #You have a unproductive need to be right, this is obvious.

Merry Christmas

[wa4eho]

Quote[/b] (W5AU @ Dec. 17 2006,15:42)]Bottom Line..... The FCC is peaved at the ARRL and Ham Radio Community big time over all the protests of their pet project BPL. #The easiest way to "Take Care" of the problem is to destroy this problem within. #That is what they are steadily doing....... #Step by Step.... #Given a few years and there wont be a problem for the FCC at all.
At least you understand. That is exactly what is going on.
And there are so many that can't see the forest for the trees. They want to frequencies to sell!! Bottom line and it's going to happen. Have fun everyone, cause it won't be long now.

[WB9YBM]

As long as we're at it, why not eliminate licensing all together? oh, wait...that's called "C.B."! Gee, I wonder where this is going? (DUH!)

[w4nti]

Quote[/b] (abaslon @ Dec. 16 2006,13:09)]Quote[/b] (n0oh @ Dec. 16 2006,12:32)]Quote[/b] (abaslon @ Dec. 16 2006,11:48)]Yes, it was bound to happen. #However, the TOTAL elimination of CODE is a shame. . . #But when Granny kicks the bucket, one doesn't just prop her up in a corner and lacker her until she's stiff as a board and stops smelling, right? #So I guess it really is time to stop beating that dead horse now, huh?

#A simple pause to reflect though. . . . #How it all started. . . #Where all of this came from.

#Anyway, if you take things as they are TODAY, Anybody with a few $$ to their name can communicate via radio to anywhere in the world without so much as a thought of a test, let alone licensing. #The Brave New World of Cell Phones! #No fuss, no muss, and it has a bloody camera built into it! #Video and still pictures. #Surf the Web. #Talk to people around the world without so much as a care of sun spots, coax length or antennas blowing over. . .

#If one steps back away from it all and takes a realistic view of how things really are, one can see that Cell Phones to HAM radio is the same thing that VCR's were to Drive-In Theaters; Total obliteration! #Our leaders had to do something very drastic just to keep any sort of new interest alive in the dusty ol' art of radio communications, and that's what it is nowadays, simply an "Arcane Art", still viable but not a needful method of communications anymore. . . It's been reduced down to an expensive hobby nowadays. #Besides, it never really was 100% reliable with or without morris code anyway, is it?

#REGARDLESS, I for one am definitely going to take advantage of the situation! #I didn't have the time to practice CODE, but I can read all sorts of books on the run about radio theory, so that puts the upper reaches of licensing into my arena now! #The officials were correct in that statement, saying that the elimination of the CW requirement was stifling the advancement of interested folk. . .

Well, I WAS one of them folk! #Thanks FCC! # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
You have got to be kidding! #When there is a tornado that knocks down the local cell towers, then see how far your cell phone will get you! #When that happens, I can take my FT-920, place it in my vehicle, string a wire, and I will be talking worldwide while you are looking at your cell phone wondering why only the camera works...
So, I guess you totally forgot about the Satellite Cells Phone that have been with us for the last 8 years or so? #All governmental officials, news agency's, corporate big-wigs and other techno-geeks with a few $$ own one or two.

#As I have tried to communicate in Words, (Not CW, and maybe that was my mistake. . .) #The world does turn and new ages come to pass as old ones fade away. #You are now seeing a new age. #HAM Radio is simply an old-time fad, which was once the main stream of communications. #It #simply isn't that today anymore. #Not in the least. No body has the NEED of a high maintenance or high level of technology which HAM systems require. #Or the space, Or the expense. . . #When something else is available and for a lot less hassles or $$ involved. #And now that the CODE requirement is banished, I still strongly believe that you will see little to no immediate adverse results. #Instead you will see the slow decay of the past 20 years, slowed still a little bit more by this new ruling, to lengthen out the life left in the art of HAM Radio Communication.

#HAM is NOT in Any Way, the only answer as it was in years gone by. #It's only an "Arcane Hobby" of Great Expense nowadays. #Like collecting old cars. #You still can use them, but there are Much better things out there nowadays. #Don't misunderstand me, I love my radio too. #I simply refuse to be brain-washed with zealots hype of how indispensable and un-replaceable these devices are. #HAM is a CHALLENGE. #Not the "Standard" or "Accepted" was of doing business any more. #Ham operators, once revered, are nowadays looked upon as curiosities or misguided souls, and even in some instances, geeks. #Society as well as technology has changed. #Period! #You can Not argue that.

#And finally; Anybody who is still gryping about loosing the CW requirement is, well, out of touch with the real world. #Not only that, but if they were going on and on about it over the CB band, like folk do here, they'd be referred to as a "Ratchet-Jaw"! #Hawhahahaha! # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
How about a purpose for Ham Radio is to LEARN SOMETHING. Learn how to build a radio from scratch, not just to play "I was nuked" but to do it for the shear joy of doing it and MAKING IT WORK.

How about getting the moon in your sights and working stations off of it? Or just listen in the Ghz range for Voyager out there in interstellar space? Talk about weak signal.

Who the heck cares if people think we are wierd or geeks. That is nothing new. It's been like that for a long time.

So instead of sitting behind that computer and complaining, why not fire up the rig on a cold dreary Winter evening when there is nothing on TV and the chat rooms are full of the same booring people and blatent sex. Tune the low end of 80 or 160, break out the old key, or Microphone if you want, and make a new friend. Some one out there in the Ether that you may only talk to one time in your entire life. But YOU did it with the rig on the table, hooked to that hunk of wire in the trees. With no help what so ever from interconnecting wires such as the Internet, phone lines, etc. Think about it....its magic. And it is worth preserving in this day and age of instant gratification. Why do people enjoy fishing? It is a lot cheaper and easier to just go buy it at the Grocery store. But where is the challange?

Dan/W4NTI

[W1LWT]

Yes ,I believe in Santa again after 50 years of not.


Thanks Santa http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[W1LWT]

Im going to enjoy being a HAM in HF soon. Because the negative ones will be complaining and Im going to have FUN.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kf4lqt]

Bet there was a lot of crying and predictions of the end of the world when they outlawed spark gap transmitters too.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (ke5rs @ Dec. 16 2006,16:02)]As far back as I can remember, getting a license has been getting easier and easier. I am fortunate I did not have to drive to a FCC office to take my tests but I still had to become a novice first. Every change that has come along since has been to either eliminate a test or skill. We eliminated the novice, the technician, 20 WPM, 13 WPM and now 5 WPM. I might be wrong here but I think there has been nothing added to replaced. If it keeps going like this; does it mean there will be eventually no license requirement at all?
Probably.

[w4ain]

Quote[/b] (k7fd @ Dec. 17 2006,07:11)]How can this be further dumbing down...

...when we're already at the bottom? There's not much differece between a no code extra and 5 wpm extra...

73 John K7FD
And there is not ANY difference between a 20 wpm extra with an attitude and a jackass.

[KB1GYQ]

Quote[/b] (w4ain @ Dec. 17 2006,19:36)]Quote[/b] (k7fd @ Dec. 17 2006,07:11)]How can this be further dumbing down...

...when we're already at the bottom? There's not much differece between a no code extra and 5 wpm extra...

73 John K7FD
And there is not ANY difference between a 20 wpm extra with an attitude and a jackass.
Finally, someone is making sense!

[k9hdt]

I took the written last April for general, hoping not to be called a glorified CB'er if I didn't learn code. Well now code is an option and I can't wait to learn! Now I have the time and chance to master the monster properly. Code has been a major issue and effort for me. NOw I get the chance to do what I wanted, just to talk with all the great hams out there on HF. You won't here good buddy out of my mouth. What you will hear is respect for all who went before me and had to earn their license a different way then I did. I just hope that that respect will be shown to me and all others who enter the HF bands as well. If I'm a poor operator than tell me, but don't curse me because I haven't mastered code yet.

One last thought. Didn't Marconi start this whole radio thing with a voice transmission?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Hope to meet you and speak with you on the HF bands!
73,
Harry
K9HDT

[dl6maa]

Lee,

Quote[/b] ]
W6EM:

Your concept, your idea, was to create a mode that can communicate more data, more quickly. #I don't have a problem with the desired outcome, its just how you do it below 30MHz.

The concept was to make best use of the limited ENERGY available to mobile stations, see Shannon's Law.

Quote[/b] ]
But, now you, and perhaps the other inventors of multicarrier, wide bandwidth emissions via an SSB transmitter are circumventing what the FCC intended: #That digital emissions on the HF bands should be of very narrow bandwidth. #500Hz for most. #1kHz for FSK.

The baudrate of a signal has nothing to do with the maximum bandwidth occupied by the signal. Even a single 100 Bd signal can occupy infinite bandwidth if the symbols are Dirac pulses.

Quote[/b] ]
Let's also get our "facts" straight. #I did NOT say "more than 3kHz," Peter, I said upwards of 3kHz. #In English that means less than or equal to......

Look through your FCC postings and you will see that you wrote "more than 3 kHz".

Once again: Stop spreading false/misleading information about PACTOR!

Quote[/b] ]
As to your questions about which transceivers, well, lets think about this for a moment. #The passband of a typical 10.7 MHz IF can be made to be easily 150kHz. #It is that, you know, in FM broadcast receivers. #My point is, just like my conjecture that you can build the next several generations of PacTOR with "N" carriers and many kHz wide, transceivers could be designed and built with very wide IF passbands........on purpose. #Perhaps, Peter, you could combine your next generation modems with the necessary RF components.

All you say here is hypothetical. As I mentioned before, 2 kHz of bandwidth is a good compromise for average amateur signals.

Quote[/b] ]
Remember, Peter, "the ARRL is with you." #Their intent to spread broadband, high speed IP content across the HF bands is a stated goal. #Perhaps they see big bucks in doing so.....

There should be some room for (new) digital modes, that's all.

Quote[/b] ]
For some reason, Peter, I suspect that each and every unmanned, automatic "responder" PMBO that is US licensed can only use PacTOR II (500Hz maximum bandwidth) without violating this regulation. #You obviously must feel differently. #But, the FCC didn't. #They even DENIED the ARRL's request for an expansion of the bandwidth limit to 3kHz. #So, the FCC seems to agree with me. #Now, that's odd, don't you think?

Well, that's your interpretation / wishful thinking. The FCC has never complained about PACTOR-III / WinLink. I think that's quite enough evidence.

Quote[/b] ]
Now, as to WinLink, email by HF amateur band, etc., well, I just don't see why vacationing professionals need to continue to abuse regulations by using the ham bands to get and respond to their business and personal email when SailMail ™ offers a reasonably priced alternative, even using your hardware.

SailMail is a non-profit organization. Commercial HF services (e. g. KielRadio, GlobeWireless) are, as far as I know, not interested in such kind of traffic/"customers".
Please just don't dictate what modes or equipment other hams want to use. Sending mail through HF channels certainly is not "classic ham radio" but it is fascinating as well.

Quote[/b] ]
Peter, you can always file an Opposition to my 04-140 Petition for Reconsideration, if you want. #Nobody's stopping you. #Just don't tell me not to do what I am entitled to do as a US citizen...... #Big mistake. #

I am convinced that the FCC people can judge your postings correctly. I need not to comment your postings at the FCC - but the situation is different on public forums like QRZ.

Peter

[kd4mxe]

k4jf merry christmas to you and yours,Bill kd4mxe http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Kc8ljg]

Well,Well............It's about time. I'm still going to learn the code. There is alot of airspace in the current frequency allocations that can be used with code and i dont want to miss any of it. Just because the code isn't a requirement anymore doesn't mean we can't learn and use it. It will be more fun as an elective--as opposed to being forced to learn it. Paul KC8LJG

[w4nti]

Quote[/b] (W5AU @ Dec. 17 2006,15:42)]Bottom Line..... The FCC is peaved at the ARRL and Ham Radio Community big time over all the protests of their pet project BPL. #The easiest way to "Take Care" of the problem is to destroy this problem within. #That is what they are steadily doing....... #Step by Step.... #Given a few years and there wont be a problem for the FCC at all.
W5AU,

There it is....someone FINALLY said it. And you are right on target. The FCC has the butt at the league, and now that the league has taken them to court (rightfully so IMHO), there gonna get more mad.

Can't blame the FCC tho. Their little group of lawyers need an education in RFI and how to read their OWN RULES.

You want to keep the FCC at bay? Force them to follow their own regulations. They hate that.

Dan/W4NTI

[w4nti]

Quote[/b] (w4ain @ Dec. 17 2006,16:36)]Quote[/b] (k7fd @ Dec. 17 2006,07:11)]How can this be further dumbing down...

...when we're already at the bottom? There's not much differece between a no code extra and 5 wpm extra...

73 John K7FD
And there is not ANY difference between a 20 wpm extra with an attitude and a jackass.
Sure there is. The 20 WPM Extra can copy CW.

Dan/W4NTI

[wr1tx]

Quote[/b] (N0NCO @ Dec. 17 2006,16:01)]Hello, all. Just joined the site.

My thoughts on this topic:

It is done.

There will be those who claim it marks the demise of Amateur Radio.

When voice was new, there were those who claimed it would be the demise of Amateur Radio. They were wrong.

When SSB was new, there were also those who predicted that it would ruin the bands. They also were wrong.

Same thing happened with FM, repeaters, packet, and spread-spectrum. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and....wrong.

Back when, some scratch-builders claimed that those who bought their radios weren't "real hams". I think most would agree that they were wrong.

When they gave Techs voice on 6m & up, again, the naysayers claimed it would be the demise of Amateur Radio. Didn't happen.

I think I detect a pattern here......

To those who feel that removing code from the license requirement marks the demise of Amateur Radio, I say this:

Our attitudes & operating practices will make or break this hobby. I will do my part to help prove you wrong.

Use the modes you enjoy, don't use the ones you don't enjoy, and don't belittle those with a different opinion. Most importantly, do your best to be part of the solution - not part of the problem. It's your hobby - enjoy it!

Now, let's get back to advancing the radio art. Speaking of advancement of the radio art - how about that new DX record on 322 GHz (http://www.arrl.org/?artid=7027)? Congrats to WA1ZMS and W4WWQ!

73 to all,

N0NCO
Joel Parker
Now THAT'S the best post anyone could have put out there concerning this topic.

I'M going to follow suit...does anyone else dare to do the same? Get on the bands, for crying out loud, and welcome our Tech brethren. Experiment, build, whatever it takes to help the hobby move forward; quit talking about its (supposed) demise.

A lot of you guys that are arguing are just flat out depressing me...obviously you don't have anything better to do.

[kd4mxe]

Quote[/b] (Kc8ljg @ Dec. 17 2006,16:45)]Well,Well............It's about time. I'm still going to learn the code. There is alot of airspace in the current frequency allocations that can be used with code and i dont want to miss any of it. Just because the code isn't a requirement anymore doesn't mean we can't learn and use it.
kc8ljg- It will be more fun as an elective--as opposed to being forced to learn it. Paul KC8LJG------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------(paul I agree with you good luck on the code ,Bill kd4mxe http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N4ASX]

We have lots of Technicians in our club who are generally good operators on VHF, but HF can be a little different. Lots of 5 WPM extras who have adopted CW as their perferred mode. I do think that we have lost a great deal of respect for each other and our selves, but that may be that we have, sence I was first licensed in 1971, the respect of lots of non-hams because we have, in our desire to have more in the hobby, dumbed down the techncial requirements to the point where an extra class amateur is no longer considered well versed in the ham radio art.

I would like to suggest that we come up with a more difficult General question pool and a more technically challanging extra class pool so that General class ops would know more then how to turn on the radio and talk and that extra class ops would again be respected as knowing enough to be good elmers and leaders in the radio art.

73 Rick
N4ASX

[kc0wcm]

there's good and bad to this I my self passed the 5wpm code exam for the fact of acomplishment. there are older hams just getting into ham radio that have a hard time with CW as far as hearing its nice that they can get upgraded now and enjoy the rest of ham while they can. On the flip side I feel its a right of passage for the code exam
You cant graduate from Highschool without learning all the subjects you need to.
I feel CW is the history of ham radio and you need to pass history to graduate!
And if the requirements to get HF was to pass the 20wpm test, then i would have learned it at 20
Droping the code completely wasn't the best move FCC has come up with.

hopefully non CW operators dont cloud up the CW portion of the band for the rest of us so we can still enjoy it.

[KK7AC]

The “It’s not relevant to ham radio today and I should not be forced to use something I won’t use anyway” argument is lame.

The real issue is not the code itself. I agree if you don’t want to use it once you get your upgrade then fine. I don’t use it hardly at all. No one is forcing anyone to use a particular mode and the subbands won’t go away if the code is removed (which it is now) from testing. I can also say that I don’t remember or use the polar coordinates of the impedance of a circuit that has an admittance of 7.09 millisiemens at 45 degrees either. I can also say that I had to learn SSTV but I never had any intention on using it. But that’s fine it was expected of me to learn. But you know what, like the code I learned it at some point because I had to if I wanted to upgrade. No gripes, no complaints, not once did I say, “This isn’t fair”; I learned it and did it. The issue is to remove something that appears to be “no longer relevant” to ones ability to operate HF. The “code” could have easily been the SSTV topic or the electrical principles questions…. because they too, if argued, can also be “not relevant” to the future of ham radio as these anti-coders use as justification. It is a stupid and weak argument for removing the code from testing. How come No Code International, NVEC or Fred Maia have not recommended we remove testing all together? What will they consider “not relevant” next? Where will it end? …. Fill in the blank questionnaire and a $5 fee?

We are ham radio operators in a radio hobby where we should be expected to know more than any group or service related to the radio art. We shall be “interoperable” with anyone in the world despite language.

But there are those who will complain and use every other excuse to justify why they can’t have something. Why does society in general do this? Why if someone has something then the rest should have it as well? I’m a conservative so I guess I don’t understand or choose to ignore anything that resembles socialism.

Although I am not completely opposed to the el